
m 



E 



km 



immmm 



!y&yvvyy\j\ 



mmm^yyy 



m^zmm 



y-\ar'^w» 



;s*« 



£MMMi&< ^y nop 



^Mi^%® 



Ajaggg^w^w 



^ttSa^el 



gVvJWWW 



| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. f 
2Co. , JZI73 1 



I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Hj 






^yi' 



^s^^ysisi 






W^^m 



MSM, 



mm, 



mmm$0^^f' 



« 



mmmmm 



yywmyp* 



Mvym 



JMWwrU- 






um^ 



^®y*Wy 



m£/i 









ym: J Kj^\ 



mmm 



^iQHM«iPy « 






- 4G 



r^ya 












mWM 



iP 



REPORT 



/f 



OF 

THE CASE 

BETWEEN THE 

REV. CAVE JONES, 

AND THE 

RECTOR ANB INHABITANTS 

0l& THE CITY OP NEW-YORK IN COMMUNION OF THE PROt 

TESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE STATE OF 

NJEW-YORK. 

AS THE SAME WAS ARGUED 

Before the five Judges of the Supreme Court of the state of 

New-York — Arbitrators to whom the difference be? 

tween the parties were referred by a rule of the 

said Court, 



-</ 



By MATTHEW I DAVIS 

]m \ i 

' "l H I II—— —II ■Tpwt i 

NEW-FORK : 

PRINTED BY WILLIAM A. DAVIS, 



1813, 




£ 

^w 

*+ ^ 



District of New- York, ss. 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the nineteenth day of November, in 
the thirty-eighth year of the Independence oj the United States of 
***** America, Matthew L. Davis, of the said District, has deposited 






-* L - s^* in this office the title of a Booh, the right whereof he claims n: 



proprietor, in the words and figures following, to wit: 
Report of the Case between the Rev. Cave Jones and the Rector and 
Inhabitants of the city of New-York in communion of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in t.he state of New- York — as the same was argued be 
foie the live Judges of the Supreme Court of the state of New- York 
Arbitrators to whom the differences between the parties were referred by 
a rule of the said Court. By Matthew L. Davis. 

In conformity to the Act of Hie Congress of the United States, entitled 
' :i An Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of Maps, 
Charts, and Book* to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the 
time therein mentioned." And also to an Act, entitled u an Act, supple- 
mentary to an Act, entitled an Act for the encouragement of Learning, by 
securing the copies of Maps, Charts-, and Books to the authors and proprietors 
of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extending the benefits 
thereof to the arts of designing, engraving and etching historical and cthet 
prints. 13 

THE RON RUDD, 
Clerk of the New-York District. 



<b 



PREFACE. 



THE importance of the controversy between the rev. 
Zilr. Jones and the Vestry of Trinity Church, will, it is 
hoped, be deemed a sufficient apology for offering to the pub- 
lic this " Report of the Case" 

To episcopalians, in particular^ this controversy was im- 
portant: because, the interesting questions, whether a bi- 
shop could resign ? and if he could, whether, in our country, 
such resignation must be made to the state convention, or to 
the house of bishops? seemed to be involved in the final de^ 
vision of Mr. Jones's case. 

By the construction given to the terms of submission, be- 
tween the vestry of Trinity Church and the rev. Cave Jones, 
it appears, that the arbitrators were not compelled to give 
f any decision or opinion," as to the validity of the proceed- 
*«igs previously instituted. It was, however, generally un» 
der-stood and believed, that the bond was imperative; and 
hat a decision en this point would have been one of their 
first acts — But the award must speak for itself. It evidently 
determines nothing except the question of compensation. Of 
ihe opinion of the arbitrators on the legality of those pro- 
ceedings, as they have not offered their sentiments, the pub- 
lic are left to form deductions from the compensation allow- 
ed ; which has been increased from two thousand five hun- 
dred, to seven thousand five hundred dollars. From a pri- 
vate and respectable source, it is stated, that their silence on 
this head, arose from an unwillingness to interfere with the 
province of the ecplesiastical authority. 

To those who are unacquainted with the proceedings* pre- 
"ions to the reference, the bond, which is the first doou- 



it. PREFACE. 

merit printed in this volume, will afford the necessary infor- 
mation. 

The counsel employed by Trinity Church, have, in the 
course of their argument, spoken with some degree of asper- 
ity* of the meeting of episcopalians which was held at Me- 
chanic-Hall on the evening of the 14th of January, 1812. In 
order that the public may judge of the characters which com- 
posed it, and be enabled to determine whether their under- 
standings were affected "by the fumes of the place in which 
they met" — to use the liberal and respectful language of one 
the counsel, it has been deemed proper to publish their 
proceedings. The acts of the committee appointed at that 
meeting, will be found detailed in the testimony of Mr. Tho» 
hias Farmar. 



At a very numerous and respectable meeting Of the episco- 
palians of the city of New-York, convened by public no- 
tice, and held at Mechanic-Hall on Tuesday evening the 
14th January, 1812, 

THOMAS FARMAR, Bsq. Chairman, 
WM. N. STUYVESANT, Esq.. Sec'ry. 
Hie following resolutions were unanimously adopted. 
Resolved, That we sincerely deplore the dissensions 
which disturb the religious society to which we belong ; that 
we conceive it to be the duty of every member of that socie- 
iy to use his utmost efforts to restore tranquillity to the 
church ; and that if those persons who are most immediately 
concerned with the existing controversies, would bear a 
spirit of reconciliation, and exercise the virtues of charity i 
forbearance* and humility, which belong to their sacred offi- 
ces; and are enjoined by the precepts of Christianity, the 
peace of the church might be restored. 

Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting, the pro- 
feedings and sentence of a convocation of the right rev. bi- 
shop Moore and certain presbyters of this diocese, against the 
rev. Cave Jones, are illegal and unjust. 

Illegal. 1st. — Because the canon under which those pro- 
reelings were instituted and that sentence was pronountedj 



PREFACE. -f. 

$6. not apply to his case, no controversy having existed be- 
tween the vestry or congregation, and Mr. Jones; or, if any 
controversy did exist between them, no efforts having been 
made according to the canon, the dictates of humanity, and 
the principles of the gospel, to settle it between themselves. 
On the contrary, the controversy to which the vestry have 
assumed to become parties, was a controversy between three 
individuals, the rev. Dr. Hobart, and the rev. Mr. How, and 
Mr. Jones; and though much to be lamented, it neither de- 
manded nor justified the proceedings on the part of the vestry 
which that body have seen fit to adopt. 

2d. Because the members of that convocation or tribunal 
were not impartial judges, bishop Moore being in his capaci- 
ty of rector, a member of the vestry, and as such, one of the 
complainants, while in his capacity of bishop, he acted as 
judge. And most of the presbyters having taken active parts 
in that controversy, and expressed decided opinions respect- 
ing it, and some of them moreover being expectants upon the 
bounty of the vestry* 

3d. Because the rev. Mr. How, being then in the employ 
of the vestry, and a dependant upon their bounty, as to the 
amount of his salary — and upon their will, as to its duration, 
was permitted, contrary to law, and contrary to the sacred 
principles of justice, to set as judge upon his adversary, in a 
controversy in which he was himself a principal party, and 
respecting which, he had previously written and published a 
book loudly condemning the conduct of Mr. Jones. 

4th. Because those proceedings were instituted, and that 
sentence pronounced, without a previous enquiry into the 
truth of Mr. Jones's charges against Dr. Hobart and Mr* 
How, or affording him an opportunity of establishing them by 
evidence, if true. 

The sentence is unjust, because it is severe, infinitely be- 
yond Mr. Jones's demerits, even if he were guilty of every 
thing of which he was accused. If it were wrong to publish 
his Appeal, when he thought he was injured by his col- 
leagues; when he thought it his duty to develope what he 
conceived to be the character of one who was then a candi- 
date for the highest office in the church, Dr. Hobart and Mr* 
W®% have committed similar offences, with bo other plea to 



vi. PREFACE. 

extenuate their conduct, than that which Mr. Jones urge* in 
his defence, viz : " That they thought their publications due 
to their characters, and the good of the church ;" a sentence 
therefore, which in effect, deprives Mr. Jones and his family 
of bread ; banishes him from his native city, and shuts every 
pulpit against him, while, without enquiry into the truth of the 
charges exhibited by him, Mr. How is left in the enjoyment 
of his living, and bishop Hobart is elevated to the highest 
clerical dignity, is- partial and unjust. 

Resolved, That by the original charter granted to the 
protestant episcopal inhabitants of this city, and by tke acts 
of the Legislature of this state, all the inhabitants of this city, 
in communion with the protestant episcopal church in the 
state of New- York, were constituted, and now are one body 
politic and coporate, by the name and style of c * The Rectoi 
and Inhabitants of the city of New-York in communion with 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state of New-York;" 
that all such inhabitants are equally entitled to express their 
sentiments respecting any dissensions which may arise in the 
church, and to adopt such measures, as in their opinions may 
be most conducive to its peace ; that they are all equally in- 
terested in the preservation and due administration of the 
temporalities of the church, and have equally a right to vote 
at elections of the vestry, who are the trustees of those tem- 
poralities. It is, therefore, the duty of each individual pos- 
sessing such a right to claim, exercise and assert it. 

Resolved, That Thomas Farmar, Nicholas Fish, Peter Me- 
Mer, George Warner, Gold. Hoyt, Benjamin Ferris. William 
lifting, Benjamin Mumford, David Wagstaff, Peter G. Stuy 
vesant, John P. Greshon, Matthew L. Davis, Dr. John Bui 
!us, James Farquhar, Simon Schermerhora, Feter Jay Mun 
roe, Jacob Delamontagnie, John Pell, Thomas Ellison, John 
Kemp, Dr. Joseph Bailey, Thomas Hamersley, Dr. George 
W. Chapman, James P. Vanhorn, Jonas Humbert, Abraham 
B. Lawrence, and William R. Stuyvesant, be a committee to 
endeavour to carry the preceding resolutions into effect ; and 
they are hereby authorized and requested to adopt all such 
measures as in their opinion will tend to heal the existing di- 
visions in the church? restore peace : and prevent a repititieu 



PREFACE. Vii. 

pf similar dissensions, and such as the good of the church, 
under existing circumstances, may require. 

Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting be pub- 
Trshed, and signed by the Chairman and Secretary. 
THOMAS FARMAR, Chairman. 
WM. N. STUYVESANT, Secretary. 



In the publication of this " Report of the Case" I have 
been influenced by no mercenary or interested feelings. 
From the moment that Mr. Jones was required to abandon 
his situation in the church, and allowed as a compensation 
for the sacrifice, only Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, 
I viewed the decision as marked with a species of intolerance, 
inconsistent with the genius of our government, and hostile 
to the virtues of charity and forbearance ; and therefore, al- 
though I had with him no personal intimacy or intercourse, I 
resolved to afford him my feeble efforts in the attempt to ob- 
tain his legal rights. The same feelings, and the same mo- 
tives determined me to take notes of all the proceedings be T 
fore the abitrators; and that the public may be enabled to 
form a just and correct judgment for themselves, this state- 
ment of facts, of documents, and of authorities, is now put 
into their hands. Its impartiality, I am bold to assert, will 
never be arraigned by any of the parties. 

The arguments of counsel previous to publication, were 
all examined by themselves, except the speech of Mr. Og- 
den, who declined doing it. I am under obligations to them 
for their friendly aid. For myself, I claim no merit, except 
the merit of having laboured with zeal and industry in a 
cause, which, in the sincerity of my heart, I believe to be 
the cause of justice, without the expectation or hope of any- 
other reward than self- approbation. 

The Reporter, 



REPORT 

OF 

THE CASE 



BETWEEN 



THE REV. CAVE JONES, &c, 

NEW-YORK, MAY 5th, 1813. 

THE Arbitrators in this Cass all attended. 

Present, 
Chief-Justice Kent, 
The Hon. S. Thompson, The Hon. A. Spencer, 

The Hon. W. W. Van Ness, The Hon. J. C. Yates. 

Counsel for the Plaintiff. \ ^ ^ ^t't, Esqrs. 

(D.B. Ogden, 
Counsel for the defendants. < J 'w~ e ^ den * 

\ C. S. Riggs, Esqrs. 
After some desultory conversation, Thomas A. Em- 
mott, Esq. of counsel for the plaintiff, read the bond entered 
into between the Rev. Cave Jones and the Corporation of 
Trinity Church, which bond, with the following documents 
and extracts, it was agreed, between the parties, " should be 
*' considered as duly proved, and that either party be at li- 
?■ fcerty to refer thereto, on tfie hearing before the arbitrators " 



DOCUMENTS, &c. 



THIS Indenture, made the fourtgerith* day of July, m 
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twelve* 
between the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- 
York, in Communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the State of New- York, of the first part, and Cave Jones, of 
the said city of New-York, clerk, of the second part. 

Whereas the above-named Cave Jones, being an Assistant 
Minister, in the employ and service of the above mentioned 
Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New-York, in Com- 
munion of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the State of 
New- York, did, on or about the first day of May, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven, cause to 
be printed and published a certain book, or pamphlet, enti- 
tled, " A Solemn Appeal to the Church, being a plain State- 
" ment of Facts in the blatters pending between Dr. Hobart> 
" with others, and the Author, by the Rev, Cave Jones, A. ML 
" one of the Assistant Ministers of Trinity Church, New- 
-' York: together with an Appendix, containing a Statement 
® of the Case of the Rev. Mr. Feltus, under his own hand." 
A copy of which book, or pamphlet, marked A, is to be con- 
sidered as part of this instrument. And whereas, on the 
thirteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord last aforesaid, 
after the publication as aforesaid of the said book, or pam- 
phlet, the said Cave Jones still being an Assistant Minister 
as aforesaid, the following proceedings were had by the said 
Hector and Inhabitants, viz, 

■ " At a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Church, in 

" the city of New-York, held in the said Church on the 

"13th day of May, 1811: 

" The committee to whom it was referred at the last meet- 

w ing of the Board to take into consideration a late publica- 

** tion of the Rev. Mr. Jones, one of the Assistant Ministers 

"■of this Church, entitled, « A Solemn Appeal to the Church? 5 

# This Bond ivas, on the loth day of Mat/, extended to the 
first of October, 1813. 



i 

*' made a report on that subject, in the words following : 
tf The committee to whom it was referred to take into con- 
" sideration a late publication of the Rev. Mr. Jones, entitled* 
" A Solemn Appeal to the Church,' have maturely reflected 
*, c thereon. 

" The publication in question appearing to relate to mat- 
H ters, the cognizance and decision of which exclusively be- 
44 long to regular tribunals, estafelished by the canons of the 
" Church, the committee deem it improper to present those 
" matters to the Vestry in any shape by which their merits 
" may elsewhere be made the subject of discussion. Never- 
" theless, in reference to the relation which subsists between 
" this Corporation and the junior Assistant Ministers em- 
c - ployed by it, the committee deem it the right and duty of 
a the Vestry to notice, and, as occasion may require, to an= 
^ imadvert upon such of the public acts of those ministers as 
*** may be calculated to affect the peace and welfare of the re- 
" ligious community with which they are united. 

" The committee having, in this view, considered the 
** subject referred to them, are of opinion, that the pamphlet 
" lately published by the Rev. Mr. Jones calls for the serious 
" attention of this Board. 

" The evident tendency of appeals to the public on the 
*' subject of private differences between ministers of the 
Sf Gospel, must in all cases be to weaken the reverence and 
" respect justly due to the clerical offices to destroy its in» 
■*' fluence, impair the discipline and government of the Church, 
| and to bring reproach upon the cause of religion. 

" In the case of an associated ministry, like that of Tri- 
"*' nity Church, evils more Immediate and pernicious are to be 
*' apprehended, inasmuch as the people will naturally take 
" part in the disputes of their pastors, their own passions and 
*S prejudices will be brought into the contest, and these must 
" soon banish from the mind that peace and good will which 
'" can alone dispose it to the receptiou of religious instruction* 

" That a course obviously involving consequences of such 
" deep importance to the character and welfare of the Church 
" should have been resorted to by one of her Ministers m 
ft the first instance, without even an experimentof the efficacy 



4 

** of that sanctioned and prescribed by her canons, adds to 
" the grief which every reflecting mind must feel on this oc- 
w casion, and leaves legs room for extenuation than might ex- 
" ist under other circumstances. 

ci If these sentiments should receive the approbation of the 
** Vestry, the committee beg leave to recommend that a copy 
" of this report, and of the resolution approving it, be trans- 
<s mitted to the Bishop, and another to the Rev. Mr. Jones, 
Signed, 

" RUFUS KING, 

" RICHARD HARISON, 

* THOMAS L. OGDEN, 
" PETER A. JAY, 

* EDWARD W. LAIGHT. 

" Which report being read and considered, it was there- 
4i upon resolved unanimously, that the same be accepted and 
*' approved, and that a copy thereof, and of this resolution, 

* be transmitted to the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, and also 
" to the Rev. Mr. Jones.^ 

And whereas, on the fourteenth day of May, in the year 
last aforesaid, a copy of the said proceedings was delivered 
to the said Cave Jones. And whereas, on the fifth day of 
September, in the year last aforesaid, the said Cave Jones 
still being Assistant Minister as aforesaid, the following pro- 
ceedings, grounded on the report therein referred to, were had 
Dy the said Rector and Inhabitants. 

" At a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Church, in 
" the city of New-York, held in the said Church on the 
* fifth day nf September, 1811 : 

* c The committee on the state of the Church reported as 
<l follows: 

" In respect to the disorderly state of Trinity Church and 
*' its Chapels, proceeding from the misbehaviour before al- 
« c luded to of the Rev. Mr. Jones, which became the subject 
" of the early animadversion of the Vestry, the committee 
<l are constrained to declare, that in their opinion the peace 

* of the Church cannot be re-established so long as the con- 
" nexion between the Vestry tad the Rev. Mr. Jones remains 
u undissolved 



<! Two modes by which this connexion may be dissolved 
** have occurred to the committee. 

" First. From the nature and terms of the engagement be* 
" tween the Vestry and the Rev. Mr. Jones there can be lit- 
*' doubt that the same may, for sufficient cause, at any time 
" be dissolved by either party, it being presumed that the 
" canons of the Church do not affect contracts which had 
••' been previously made. 

" Second. The thirty-second canon of the General Conven- 
Cl tion of the year 1808 relates to disagreements between 
" Ministers and their congregations or vestries, and provides 
" for the dissolution of the connexion between them. 

" As the committee have expressed their opinion, that the 
*.' connexion with Mr. Jones ought to be dissolved, it remains 
" for the Vestry solemnly to consider and determine whether 
** a due regard for the peace and prosperity of the Church 
M does not require them, without delay, to have recourse to 
Ci the means provided by the canons to effect this dissolution. 

Signed, 

" RUFU8 KING, 
" DAVID M. CLARKSON, 
« RICHARD HARISON, 
" ANDREW RAYMOND, 

u Which report being under consideration, the Vestry 
w came to the following resolutions. 

" Whereas differences and controversies exist between the 
" Rev. Mr. Cave Jones, one of the Assistant Ministers of 
" this Church, and this Vestry, arising out of the publica- 
**' tion entitled ' A Solemn Appeal to the Church,' which 
" are of such a nature as cannot be settled between them ; 

" Resolved therefore, that application representing the 
** same be made, on the part of this board, to the bishop of 
" the diocese, pursuant to the thirty-second canon of the 
f* General Convention. 

" Thereupon resolved further, that the Right Rev. the 
" Bishop of the diocese be, and he hereby is humbly, request- 
" ed to take into immediate consideration the subject mat- 
*■ ter of the foregoing resolutions, and, with the' assistance 



Ci of Ms Presbyters, to proceed therein according to the t\i~ 
".rections of the said canon.'' 

And whereas, on the sixth day of September, in the year 
'Jast aforesaid, a copy of the proceedings last aforesaid, were*. 
by the order of the said Rector and Inhabitants, delivered 
to the Right Rev, Benjamin Moore, D. D. one of the Bishops 
tff the Protestant Episcopal Church : And whereas, on tb€ 
Seventh day of September, in the year last aforesaid, the 
said Dr. Benjamin Moore did cause a copy of the proceedings 
last aforesaid to be delivered to the said Cave Jones: And 
whereas, on the sixteenth day of October, in the year last 
aforesaid, the said Dr. Benjamin Moore caused to be deliver- 
ed to the said Cave Jones a letter in the words following, viz. 
M To the Rev, Cave Jones* 

" New-York, 15th October, 1811,, 
" Sir, 

" You are hereby informed, that on the application 
ci of the Vestry of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York* 
" I shall meet with my Presbyters on Tuesday, November 5th? 
" at Robinson-street, No, 20, in said city, at 12 o'clock, to 
Ci proceed in your case, agreeably to the requisitions of the 
iS thirty-second canon of the General Convention of the Pro- 
" testant Episcopal Church ; at which time and place, if 
" you deem it proper to attend, you will be heard in relation 
:{ to the said case and the proceedings thereon. 

* BENJAMIN MOORE, 
« By his son, CLEMENT C. MOORE.*' 

And whereas, on the fifth day of November, in the year 
last aforesaid, the said Right Rev. Bishop Moore, and also 
the following Presbyters of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
an the State of New- York, namely, Isaac Wilkins, Theodo- 
sius Bartow, John Bowden, Elias Cooper, Davenport Phelps, 
Joseph Prentice, John Reed, Nathaniel Bowen, Thomas 
Iiyell, Jonathan Judd, Seth Hart, Barzillai Bulkley, Thomae 
Y. How, Samuel Haskill, Richard C. Moore, William Harris, 
and Henry I.'Feltus, did assemble at the time and place men- 
tioned in the last aforesaid letter, for the purpose therein 
expressed. 



And whereas the said Cave Jones did appear at the said 
time and place before the said Bishop and Presbyters, so 
assembled as aforesaid, and did then and there object to the 
authority of the said Bishop and Presbyters assembled to take 
cognizance of the case of him the said Cave Jones, or to take 
any order thereon 5 and to the incompetency of the said 
PresbyterSj or some of them, to hear or determine the said 
ease. 

And whereas, after hearing the said objections of the said 
Cave Jones, the said Bishop, and a majority of the said" 
Presbyters, did then and there make and subscribe the follow- 
ing instrument, viz. 

"■New-York, Nov, 5th, 1811, 

"■ Whereas certain resolutions of the Vestry of Trinity 
■' Church, in the city of New-Yok, have been transmitted: 
"' to me Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant 
" Episcopal Church in the State of New- York j which rcso- 
u lutions are in the words following, viz* 

" Whereas differences and controversies exist between the 
K Rev- Cave Jones, one of the Assistant Ministers of Trinity 
;i Church, and this Vestry, arising out of the publication? 
" entitled i A Solemn Appeal to the Church/ which are of 
sx such a nature as cannot be settled between them ; 

" Resolved therefore, that application respecting the same 

* be made, on the part of this board, to- the Bishop of the 
" diocese, pursuant to the thirty-second canon of the Gene- 
" ral Convention. 

" Thereupon resolved' further, that the Right Rev. the 
Bishop of the diocese be, and he hereby is humbly request- 
ed to take into immediate consideration, the subject mat 
ter of the foregoing resolution, and, with the assistance of 
his Presbyters, to proceed therein according to the direc- 

* tions of the said canon. 

" Resolved, that the Clerk be directed to transmit a copy 
■' of the foregoing resolutions to the Right Rev. Bishop- 
:i Moore. 

u Extract from the minutes. 

THOMAS L. OGDEN, Clerk. 



p 

" And whereas a copy of the said resolutions was, on the 
w 7th of September last, by me furnished to the Rev. Cave 
" Jones, and thereupon the said Cave Jones presented to me 
" a remonstrance against any proceedings being had against 
" him under the said canon, upon the said application of the 
" said Vestry, as by a reference to the said remonstrance, a 
M copy whereof is hereunto annexed, may appear. 

" And whereas, after a communication of the said remon- 
" strance to the said Vestry, the said Vestry hath requested 
" me to proceed under the said canon, and I having deter- 
" mined so to proceed, the said application appearing to me 
" to be one that comes within the purview of the said canon. 

" And whereas reasonable notice, in writing, has been 
" served upoiv the said Cave Jones, on the sixteenth day of 
" October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight nun- 
" dred and eleven aforesaid, to appear before me and my 
" Presbyters on the fifth day of November, in the said year, 
" at the hour of 12 o'clock, at No. 20 Robinson-street, to 
" show if any thing he has to say on his part, in relation to 
" the said application and case of controversy, at which 
" time and place we, the said Bishop and his Presbyters, who 
" have subscribed these presents, were duly assembled, and 
" the said Cave Jones appeared, and was by us fully heard in 
" relation to the said application and case of controversy ; 
" and thereupon we, the said Bishop and Presbyters, having 
" advised together, it appears to us that the controversy be- 
" tween the Rev. Cave Jones, one of the Assistant Ministers 
" of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, and the 
" Vestry of said Church, has proceeded such lengths as to 
u preclude all hope of a favourable termination, and that a dis- 
" solution of the connexion is indispensably necessary to re- 
" store the peace and promote the prosperity of the Church; 
" therefore, agreeable to the authority vested in us by the 
" thirty-second canon of the General Convention of the Prc~ 
" testant Episcopal Church, we do recommend to the Rev. 
" Cave Jones, one of the Assistant Ministers of Trinity 
" Church, New-York, to relinquish immediately his title to 
" the said office of Assistant Minister, on the following con- 
" ditions, viz. 



9 

st That the Vestry of said Church pay to the said Rev. 
*'* Cave Jones the balance of his salary which may be due on 
*' this day, and within thirty days thereafter the sum of one 
s ' thousand pounds. 

" And should the said Minister or Vestry refuse to comply 
** with the recommendation and conditions aforesaid, with the 
u concurrence of my Presbyters, the penalties of the canon 
" aforesaid with respect to the party or parties refusings shall 

* be carried into full effect* Witness our hands this 5th of 
" November, 1811. 

" BENJAMIN MOORE, 
" Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State 
<* of New- York. 

« ISAAC WILKINS, 
" THEOD. BARTOW, 
" JOHN BOWDEN, 
" E. COOPER, 
« DAVENPORT PHELPS, 
« JOSEPH PRENTICE, 
" JOHN REED, 
•' N. BOWEN, 
" TROS. LYELL, 
" JONATHAN JUDD, 
" SETE HART, 
« BARZILLAI BULKLEY, 
" THOMAS Y. HOW." 
And whereas the said Bishop Moore, and the said Pres- 
byters, did also then and there resolve as follows : 

" Resolved, that the Clerk of this Convocation is hereby 
*' ordered to deliver forthwith one of the foregoing instruments 
" to the Rev. Cave Jones, and another to the Vestry of 

* Trinity Church, and to require their answer in writing to 
** the same, addressed to the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, at 

* No. 20 Robinson-street, at or before ten o'clock A. M. to- 

* morrow ; and to inform the parties respectively, that a 
" failure to answer will be considered as a refusal by the 
" l party so failing to comply with the terms of the recomjneia- 
A dation of the Bishop a&4 his Presbyters M 

B 



10 

And whereas, cmr the day and year last aforesaid, the instru^ 
ment and resolution last aforesaid was delivered to the said 
Cave Jones, and another copy of the said instrument, subscri- 
bed as aforesaid, and of the said resolution, was delivered 
on the day and year aforesaid, to the said Vestry. And 
whereas, by the time, and at the place mentioned in the last 
aforesaid resolution,the said Rector and Inhabitants did signify 
in writing to the said Bishop Moore, that they would comply 
with the recommendations and conditions mentioned in the 
instrument subscribed by the said Bishop and Presbyters as- 
aforesaid. 

And whereas the said Cave Jones wrote and, at the time 
and place mentioned in the last aforesaid resolution, caused 
to be delivered to the said Bishop Moore, a letter in the worde 
following, to wit: 

" Right Rev. Sir, 

" The enclosed copy of a letter from the 
" Bishop of the diocese is the only answer which I have to 
*' offer to the communication of yesterday, by your clerk, Mr- 
" Lyell ; and it is my intention to govern myself accord- 
" ingly, 

tf Your obedient servant. 

" CAVE JONES 
vS Right Rev. Benj» Moore, 

" Nov. 6, 1811." 

And whereas the copy of the letter enclosed in the letter 
last aforesaid was in the words following, to wit : 

New-Yorfc, 5th of Nov. 1811, 

* Rev. Sir* 

" I have examined the documents covered by 
il your letter of this date, purporting to be the proceedings 
.** of the Bishop of this diocese and his Presbyters ; I can 
45 - only say, that I think these proceedings totally unauthor- 

* ized by the constitution and canons of our Church, and, so 
u for as I have been able to judge, they are not sanctioned 



11 

Xi "by the principles of our religion or humanity ; ray advice 
v< to you, therefore, is to disregard them. 
" Rev* Sir, I am, 
" With great respect and esteem, 
" Yours sincerely, 
" SAMUEL PROVOOST, D. D. 
" Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
** State of Njew-York, and Diocesan of the same. 
" The Rev. Cave Jones.' 5 

And whereas, on the sixth day of November, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven, after 
the last aforesaid letter of the said Cave Jones had been de- 
livered, as aforesaid, the said Bishop Moore, and the majority 
of the Presbyters, assembled as aforesaid, did make and sub- 
scribe an instrument in the words following, to wit : 

" Whereas an instrument, signed by the Right Rev. Ben- 
" jamin Moore, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
" Church in the State of New- York, and the Presbytere 
" whose names are annexed to the same, bearing date the 
M fifth of November inst. recommending to the Rev. Cave 
** Jones one of the Assistant Ministers of Trinity Church, in 
" the city of New- York, to relinquish his title to the said 
" office of Assistant Minister, upon certain conditions therein 
" mentioned, was served on the Rev. Cave Jones and the 
" Vestry of Trinity Church respectively, on the day of the 
u date thereof. 

" And whereas a notification of the Bishop and his Pres- 
" byters, passed the same day, was also at the same time 
" served on the parties respectively, requiring them to return 
" their answer in writing, addressed to the Right Rev. Bishop 
'" Moore, at the time and place specified ; and informing them 
" that a failure to answer will be considered as a refusal to com- 
" ply with the terms of the recommendation of the Bishop 
a . and his Presbyters.. 

a And whereas the Rev. Cave Jones refused to comply 
Ci with the recommendation contained in the before mentioned 
" instrument. 

" Now therefore, according to the power vested in us by 
V the 32d canon of the General G&n^entioQ of the Protestant 



12 

" Episcopal Church in the United States of America, we do 
' 5 hereby declare, that the Rev. Cave Jones be suspended 
" from the exercise of all ministerial duties, until he shall 
" retract such refusal, and submit to the terms of recomraenda- 

* tion: and I the Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop 
" of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- 
,; York, do suspend him accordingly. 

" And we, the said Presbyters, as far as the said canon 
" jnay require, do join in the said sentence. 

" Signed, BENJAMIN MOORE, 

Cf Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
" State of New- York. 

" ISAAC WILKINS, 
« THEOD. BARTOW, 
( - JOHN BOWDEN, 
" ELI AS COOPER, 

* DAVENPORT PHELPS, 

* SETH HART, 

* « THOMAS Y. HOW, 
« NATH. BOWEN, 

" THOS. LYELL, 

* JOHN REED, 

-" BARZILLAI BULKLEY, 
"JONATHAN JUDD, 
« JOSEPH PRENTICE." 

And whereas, on the twenty-sixth day of November, in 
the year last aforesaid, the said Rector and Inhabitants did 
cause to be duly tendered to the said Cave Jones, the balance 
of his salary and allowances then in arrear ; and did also on 
the same day of November, in the year last aforesaid, cause 
to be duly tendered to the said Cave Jones, two thousand 
five hundred dollars, equal in value to the sum of one thou- 
sand pounds mentioned in the said instrument, signed by the 
said Bishop and Presbyters first above mentioned. 

And whereas the said Cave Jones did refuse to receive the 
said sums of money so tendered to him as aforesaid. 

And whereas the said Cave Jones still claims to be an 
Assistant Minister as aforesaid, and has given notice to the 
said Rector and Inhabitants, that b& is willing to perform 



the duties of such Assistant Minister, and claims to be enti- 
tled to the same salary and emoluments as before the said 
proceedings were had against him, and insists that the said 
proceedings had against him by the said Bishop and Presby- 
ters are illegal and void ; and that if the said proceedings of the 
said Eishop and Presbyters are legal, yet that he ought in, 
equity to receive from the said Rector and Inhabitants a 
larger sum of money than the said sum of one thousand 
pounds. 

And whereas the said Rector and Inhabitants insist that 
the said Cave Jones is no longer entitled to receive any sa- 
lary or compensation as an Assistant Minister as aforesaid, 
and that the said proceedings of the said Bishop and Presby- 
ters are legal and valid, and that the said Cave Jones ought 
not to receive a larger compensation than the said sum of 
one thousand pounds. 

And whereas the said Cave Jones hath commenced an ac- 
tion against the said Rector and Inhabitants in the Supreme 
Court of Judicature of the People of the State of New-York, 
to recover his salary and compensation as an Assistant Minis- 
ter as aforesaid. 

And whereas the said Rector and Inhabitants, and the said 
Cave Jones, have agreed to submit the said action, and all 
other the matters which could properly be discussed in a 
court of justice in any suit or action between them, the said 
parties, to the award, arbitrament, and determination of the 
Honourable James Kent, Ambrose Spencer, Smyth Thomp- 
son, William W. Van Ness, and Joseph C. Yates, Esquires, 
or any three of them, arbitrators, indifferently elected, cho- 
sen, and named, as well by and on the part and behalf of 
the said Rector and Inhabitants as of the said Cave Jones, 
to arbitrate, award, judge, order, and determine of and con- 
cerning the same. And it has also been agreed between the 
said parties, that the quantum of compensation which on a 
dissolution of the connexion subsisting between them ought, 
under all circumstances, to be paid and allowed by the said 
Hector and Inhabitants to the said Cave. Jones, should be 
deemed and considered as open for adjustment and settle- 
ment by the said arbitrators, notwithstanding any decision or 



14b 

opinion of the said arbitrators establishing the validity oC 
the said sentence of suspension and proceedings herein before 
referred to. And in case of any decision or opinion of the 
said arbitrators against the validity of the said sentence ami 
proceedings, that the said Cave Jones shall be considered as 
folding precisely the same office as he held under the said 
Becto? and Inhabitants before the said sentence, and upon 
the same tenure, and with the same rights in respect to the 
emoluments of the said office. 

Now, this indenture witnesseth, that the said Rector and 
Inhabitants, and the said Cave Jones, do, by these presents, 
submit themselves to the award, order, arbitrament, final 
«nd, and determination of the Hon. James Kent, Smyth 
Thompson, Ambrose Spencer, William W. Van Ness, and Jo- 
seph C. Yates, Esquires, or any three of them, arbitrators, 
indifferently elected, chosen, and named, as well by and on 
the part and behalf of the said Rector and Inhabitants, as 
of the said Cave Jones, to arbitrate, award, judge, order, 
and determine of and concerning the premises above mention- 
ed to be agreed to be submitted, so as the award of the said 
arbitrators, or any three of them, be made in writing, under 
their hands and seals, ready to be delivered to the said par- 
lies in difference on or before the fisrt day of June # next ensu- 
ing. And the said Cave Jones, for himself, his heirs, exe- 
cutors, and administrators, doth hereby covenant, promise, 
and agree to and with the said Rector and Inhabitants, and 
4heir successors, that the said Cave Jones, his executors, or 
administrators, will not, at any time hereafter, revoke the au- 
thority hereby given to the said arbitrators, but will in all 
things submit himself and themselves to the award and arbit- 
rament of the said arbitrators so to be made as aforesaid, and 
will well and faithfully perform, fulfil, and keep the same, 
and all and every agreement, matter, and thing in these 
presents mentioned, on the part of the said Cave Jones, his 
heirs, executors, or administrators, to be observed, performed, 
and fulfiled, according to the true intent and meaning thereof* 
And the said Rector and Inhabitants, for themselves and 

* Extended to the first of October, 1813. 



m 

their successors, do hereby covenant, promise, and agree t@ 
and with the said Cave Jones,his executors and administrators, 
that the said Rector and Inhabitants, and their successors, 
will not, at any time hereafter, revoke the authority hereby 
given to the said arbitrators, but will in all things submit 
themselves to the award and arbitrament of the said arbitra- 
tors so to be made as aforesaid, and will well and faithfully 
perform, fulfil, and keep the same, and all and every agree- 
ment, matter, and thing in these presents mentioned, on the 
part of the said Rector and Inhabitants, and their successors, 
te be performed, observed, and fulfilled, according to the true 
Intent and meaning thereof 

And it is hereby agreed by and between the said parties, 
thai these presents, and the submission hereby made of the 
said matters in controversy, shall be made a rule of the 
Supreme Court of Judicature of the People of the State of 
New-York, to the end that the said parties in difference may 
be finally concluded hj the said arbitration and award, pur- 
suant to the statute in such case made and provided. 

And it is further agreed by and between the parties afore- 
said, that the printed copies of the Journals of the General 
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and of the 
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State 
of New- York, and the printed copies of the Canons made 
oy each of the said Conventions, and heretofore printed and 
published, may be given in evidence before the said arbitra- 
tors, and shall be of equal effect with the originals of the 
said Journals and Canons. 

And it is in like manner agreed between the said parties,, 
1-hat the resolution of the Vestry of Trinity Church, where- 
by the said Cave Jones was called and appointed to be one of 
the Assistant Ministers of the said Church, and the letters 
of call and acceptance which passed on that occasion, shall 
be, and is hereby admitted to be equally binding and effectual 
for the purposes of this submission, as if the same was under 
the seal of the said Rector and Inhabitants ; but nothing 
herein is to be considered as admitting his having any legal 
right to be considered as standing in the same situation as the 
Assistant Rector, or Minister designated in the Charter of 
the said Corporation* 



IS 

And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, 
that the said Rector and inhabitants shall produce befose the 
eaid arbitrators, such of the records or minutes of their pro= 
ceedings, or authenticated copies thereof, as shall be called 
for by the said Cave Jones, and as the said arbitrators shall 
determine ought to be produced. And that either party shall 
ibe at liberty to produce any testimony that the arbitrators 
may think proper to receive. And that the witnesses on 
each side shall be examined on oath, which oath shall be 
administered by such person as the said arbitrators may 
think proper to direct. 

In witness whereof the said party of the first part have 
paused their seal to be hereunto affixed, and the said party 
of the second part hath hereunto set his hand and seal inter- 
changeably the day and year first above written. 

CAVE JONE8. 
Sealed and delivered in the presence of 

CADWALLADER D. C OLDEN; 

Fvob. Lawrence. 



17 

DOCUMENTS 

RELATIVE TO THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE 

REV. CAVE JONES. 



CANON XXIX. of the General Convention of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church. 

Concerning the Election and Institution of Ministers into 
Parishes or Churches, 

IT is hereby required, that on the election of a Minister 
into any Church or parish, the Vestry shall deliver, or 
cause to be delivered, to the Bishop, or, where there is no 
Bishop, to the Standing Committee of the Diocese, notice of 
the same, in the following form, or to this effect. 

We, the Church-wardens, (or, in case of an Associated Rec- 
tor or an Assistant Minister, We, the Rector and Church- 
wardens) do certify to the Right Rev. (naming the Bishop), 
or to the Rev.(naming the President of the Standing Committee), 
that {naming the person) has been duly chosen Rector (or As- 
sociated Rector, or Assistant Minister, as the case may be) 
of (naming the parish, or church, or churches.) 

Which Certificate shall be signed with the names of those 
who certify. 

And if the Bishop or the Standing Committee be satisfied 
that the person so chosen is a qualified Minister of this Church, 
the Bishop, or the President of the Standing Committee, 
shall transmit the said certificate to the Secretary of the Con- 
vention, who shall record it in a book to be kept by him for 
that purpose. And if the Minister elect be a Presbyter, the 
Bishop, or President of the Standing Committee, may, at the 
instance of the Vestry, proceed to have him instituted accor- 
ding to the office established by this Church. But if he be 



IS 

a Deacon, the act of institution shall not take place till after 
he shall have received Priest's Orders, when the Bishop, or 
President, may have it performed. 

But if the Bishop, or the Standing Committee, be not sa- 
tisfied as above, he, or they, shall, at the instance of the par- 
ties, proceed to inquire into the sufficiency of the person 
so chosen, according to such rules as may be made in the 
respective Dioceses, and shall confirm or reject the appoint- 
ment, as the issue of that inquiry may be. 

No Minister who may be hereafter elected into any Parish 
or Church, shall be considered as a regularly admitted and 
settled Parochial Minister, in any Diocese or State, or shall 
as such, have any vote in the choice of a Bishop, until he 
shall have been instituted according to the office prescribed 
hy this Church. 

This Canon shall not be obligatory on the Church in those 
Dioceses or States with whose usages, laws, or charters it 
interferes. Nor shall any thing in this Canon, or in any 
other Canon, or in any service of the Church relative to 
the office of Associated Rectors, apply to the Church in 
those States or Dioceses where this office is not recognized 
by the constitution, laws or canons thereof. 

But it is to be understood, that this Church designs not to 
express any approbation of any laws or usages, which make 
the station of a Minister dependant on any thing else than 
Iris own soundness in the faith, or worthy conduct. On the 
contrary, the Church trusts that every regulation in contra- 
riety to this, will be in due time reconsidered ; and that there 
will be removed all hindrances to such reasonable discipline 
as appears to have belonged to the Churches of the most ac- 
knowledged orthodoxy and respectability. 

Letter of Institution, given by the Bishop, extracted from the 
Institution Office. 

" We do by these presents give and grant unto you, in 
whose learning, diligence, sound doctrine, and prudence, 
we do fully confide, our license and authority, to perform the 
office of a Priest in the Parish [or Church] of E. And als<> 



19 

liereby do institute you into said Parish [or Church], possese 
ed of full power to perform every act of sacerdotal function 
among the people of the same ; you continuing in communion 
with us, and complying with the rubrics and canons of the 
Church, and with such lawful directions as you shall at any 
time receive from us. 

" And as a canonically instituted Priest into the office of 
Rector [Associated Rector, or Assistant Minister, as the case 
may be,~] of Parish [or Church,] you are faithfully to feed 
that portion of the flock of Christ which is now entrusted to 
you ; not as a man-pleaser, but as continually bearing in mind, 
that you are accountable to us here, and to the Chief Bishop 
and Sovereign Judge of all hereafter. 

" And as the Lord hath ordained, that they who serve at 
the altar should live of the things belonging to the altar ; so 
we authorize you to claim and enjoy all the accustomed tem- 
poralities appertaining to your cure, until some urgent reason 
or reasons occasion a wish in you, or in the congregation 
committed to your charge, to bring about a separation, and 
dissolution of all sacerdotal relation between you and them ; 
of all which you will give us due notice : and in case of any 
difference between you and your congregation, as to a sepa- 
ration, and dissolution of all sacerdotal connexion hetween 
you and them, we, your Bishop, with the advice of our Pres- 
byters, are t© be the ultimate arbiter and judge. 

" In witness whereof^ we have hereunto affixed our Episco- 
pal seal and signature, at this day of A. D. 
and in the year of our consecration* 55 

Extract from " the Form and Manner of Ordering Priests.''' 
in Use in the Protestant Episcopal Church. 

Questions proposed to the person to be ordered Priest by 
*' The Bishop. Will you maintain and set forwards, as 
much as lieth in you, quietness, peace, and love among all 
Christian people, and especially among them that are or shall 
be committed to your charge ? 
■" Answer, I will so do, the Lord being my helper. 



20 

" The Bishop. Will you reverently obey your Bishop, and 
other chief Ministers, who according to the Canons of the 
Church, may have the charge and government over you; 
following with a glad mind and will, their godly admonitions, 
and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments ? 

" Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper." 



CANON XXX. of the General Convention of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church. 

Respecting the Dissolution of all Pastoral Connexion between 
Ministers and their Congregations, 

When any Minister has been regularly instituted or settled 
in a Parish or Church, he shall not be dismissed without the 
concurrence of the Ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese or 
State ; and in case of his dismission without such concurrence, 
the Vestry or Congregation of such Parish or Church shall 
have no right to a representation in the Convention of the 
State or Diocese, until they have made such satisfaction as 
the Convention may require. Nor shall any Minister leave 
his congregation against their will, without the concurrence 
of the Ecclesiastical authority aforesaid; and if he shall 
leave them without such concurrence, he shall not be allowed 
to take a seat in any Convention of this Church, or be eligible 
into any Church or Parish within the States which have ac- 
ceded to the Constitution of this Church, until he shall have 
made such satisfaction as the Ecclesiastical authority of the 
Diocese or State may require. 

In the case of the regular and canonical dissolution of the 
connexion between a Minister and his Congregation, the 
Bishop, or, if there be no Bishop, the Standing Committee, 
shall direct the Secretary of the Convention to record the 
same. But if the dissolution of the connexion between any 
Minister and his Congregation be not regular or canonical, 
the Bishop, or Standing Committee, shall lay the same before 
the Convention of the Diocese or State, in order that the 
a.bove mentioned penalties may take effect 



21 

This Canon shall not be obligatory upon those States or 
Dioceses with whose usages, laws, or charters it interferes. 

CANON XXXII. of the General Convention of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church. 

Respecting Differences between Ministers and their Congrega- 
tions. 

In cases of controversy between Ministers, who now, or 
may hereafter, hold the Rectorship of Churches or Parishes, 
and the Vestry or Congregation of such Churches or Parishes, 
which controversies are of such a nature as cannot be settled 
by themselves, the parties or either of them, shall make ap- 
plication to the Bishop of the Diocese, or, in case there be 
no Bishop, to the Convention of the State. And if it ap- 
pear to the Bishop and his Presbyters, or, if there be no Bi- 
shop, to the Convention, or the Standing Committee of the 
Diocese or State, if the authority should be committed to 
them by the Convention, that the controversy has proceeded 
such lengths as to preclude all hope of its favourable termi- 
nation, and that a dissolution of the connexion which exists 
between them is indispensably necessary, to restore the peace, 
and promote the prosperity oi the Church, the Bishop and 
his Presbyters, or, if there be no Bishop, the Convention, 
or the Standing Committee of the Diocese or State, if the 
authority should be committed to them by the Convention, 
shall recommend to such ministers to relinquish their titles to 
their Rectorship on such conditions as may appear reasonable 
and proper to the Bishop and his Presbyters, or if there be 
no Bishop, to the Convention, or the Standing Committee of 
the Diocese or State, if the authority should be committed to 
them by the Convention. Andif such Rectors or Congregations 
refuse to comply with such recommendation, the Bishop and 
his Presbyters, or if there be no Bishop, the Convention, or the 
Standing Commmittee of the Diocese or State, if the authority 
should be committed to them by the Convention, with the aid 
and consent of a Bishop, may, at their discretion, proceed, ac- 
cording to the Canons of the Church,to suspend the former from 



the exercise of any Ministerial duties within tlie Diocese or 
State ; and prohibit the latter from a seat in the Convention, 
until they retract such refusal, and submit to the terms of the 
recommendation : and any Minister so suspended shall not be 
permitted, during his suspension, to exercise any Minis- 
terial duties in any other Diocese or State. This Canon 
shall apply also to the cases of Associated Rectors and As- 
sistant Ministers and their Congregations. 

This Canon shall not be obligatory upon the Church in 
those States or Dioceses with whose usages, laws or charter* 
it interferes. 



Extract from the Charter of Trinity Churchy relative to tht 
Office of Assistant Rector. 

Page 12. " The Rector of the said Parish for the time 
being shall, and may, by and with the consent of the said 
Vestrymen and Church-Wardens for the time being, or any 
eleven or more of them, whereof one of the Church- Wardens 
to be one, from time to time, nominate one able Protestant 
Minister, in Priest's Orders, to reside in the said Parish, to be 
Preacher and Assistant to the said Rector, and his successors, 
in the celebration of the divine offices of praying and preach- 
ing, and other duties incident to be peformed in the said 
Church and Parish, as the said Rector shall require of him," 
o.. which " said Preacher Assistant shall continue in his said 
place during his natural life, if be shall so long inhabit there * 
except on some offence, or misgovernment by him committed, 
and unless for cause reasonable proved, he shall be displaced 
by the said Rector for the time being, by and with the con= 
sent of the said Vestrymen, or any eleven or more of them."' 

Extract from the Minutes of the Vestry of Trinity Church, 
relative to the appoinment of an Assistant Rector. 

At a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Churchy held the 
13th of March, 1811, 
A nomination, by the Rector, of the Rev. Abraham Beach 

to be his Assistant, was produced and read with the approba- 



tion and consent of the Church-Wardens and a majority of 
the Vestry, to the same, and is as follows : 

" Gentlemen, 

" I nominate the Rev. A. Beach, D. D. to be 
my Assistant, according to the provisions ot the charter. 
NewrYork, 8th March, 1811. 

" BENJAMIN MOORE, Rector, 

« By CLEMNT C. MOORE, his son. 

" To the Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church" 

We, the undersigned, consented to the above nomination, 
and in testimony thereof have hereunto subscribed our names* 

Signed., 

RUFUS KING, j Church-War- 

ANTHONY L. RLEECKER, } dens. 

MOSES ROGERS, 

RICHARD HARISON, 

JACOB LE ROY> 

THOMAS BARROW, 

FREDERICK DE PEYSTER. 

CHARLES M'EVERS, 

T. L. OGDEN, 

NEH. ROGERS, 

JOHN LEGEAR, 

JOHN M'VICKAR, 

DAVID M. CLARKSON; 

WYNANT VAN ZANDT, jun. 

JOHN CLARK, 

FRANCIS DOMINICK, 

ANDREW RAYMOND, 

JOSHUA JONES, 

JOHN ONDERDONK, 

ANDREW SMITH, 

GARRIT H. VAN WAGENEN. 



Mr. Jones's Call. 

Rev. Sir, 

We are commissioned by the Vestry of Trinity 
Church to inform you, that you are invited by a vote of that 
board, passed this day, to accept the office of an Assistant 
Minister in the Churches under their care, upon the same 
terms on which the other Assistant Ministers are placed : 
the salary is five hundred pounds per annum. We are fur- 
ther to remark, that it is required that you (in conjunction 
with the Rev. Mr. Hobart) perform divine service in one of 
the Churches on Sunday evenings. 

We are, Rev. Sir, 
Your very humble servants, 

JOHN CHARLTON, 

ANDREW HAMERSLEY,} Committee. 

HUGH GAINE 

Jan. 14, 1801. 

The Rev. Cave Jones. 



Mr. Jones's Acceptance. 

Accomack, 26th of January, 1801. 
Messrs. John Charlton, Andrew Hamersley, Hugh Gaine, 
Committee, 

Gentlemen, 

You will be so good as to communicate 
to the Vestry of Trinity Church the becoming sense which 
I entertain of their regard, expressed by the invitation trans- 
mitted by their committee. I accept of their appointment; 
and earnestly pray to God that this dispensation of his provi- 
dence may tend to the advancement of the Redeemer's king- 
dom, and our mutual edification and establishment in the 
faith. You will please to inform me when the vacancy will 
take place, and consequently when it is the wish of the Vestry 
that I should be in New- York ; at the same time I take the 



25 

liberty to suggest that it will scarcely be in my power till 
sometime in the month of May. 

With sentiments of perfect respect, 
I am, Gentlemen, 

Your obedient servant, 

CAVE JONES. 



Extract from the minutes of the Vestry of Trinity Church, 
relative to differences with Mr. Jones. 

At a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Church, held the 
mh of May, 1811, 
The Assistant Rector laid before the board a letter from 
the Rev. John Henry Hobart, in the words following : 

" To the Rev. Dr. Beach. 
" Whereas the Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- 
York, hath caused a letter to be addressed to the Secretary 
of the Convention of the said Church, which letter is in the 
words following : 

" New-York, 20th March, 1811. 
• ; Rev. Sir, 

" The severe affliction with which it hath pleased 
Almighty God to visit me, has affected my state of health 
in such a manner, that it will be impossible for me, 
without assistance, to perform the duties of the Episcopal 
Office. I am therefore anxious that a Special Convention 
should be called, for the purpose of deliberating on the pro- 
priety of appointing an Assistant Bishop in this diocese. A 
variety of considerations, affecting the most important inter- 
ests of our holy Church, appear to me to render this measure 
indispensable; and it is, I think, very desirable that the ap- 
pointment should be made without delay, so that the consecra- 
tion may take place at the ensuing General Convention. You 
will therefore be so good as to take the necessary steps for 
calling a Special Convention of the Church in this diocese. 



26 

to meet in the city of New-York, on the seeond Teusday 
of May next. 

" Praying sincerely that all our undertakings may, by 
Divine Providence, be guided in such a way as may best 
conduce to the giory of God and the good of his Church, I 
remain, with affection and esteem, Rev. Sir, your friend and 
Father in the Lord. 

BENJAMIN MOORE, 
f Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
" in the State of New-York^ 

By his son, CLEMENT C. MOORE. 
" The Rev. John Henry Hobart, D. D. Secretary of the 
Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the State of New-York." 

" Now, therefore, in obedience to the directions of the 
Bishop contained in the above letter, notice is hereby given, 
that a Special Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the State of New- York will be held, for the purpose spe- 
cified in the letter aforesaid, in the city of New- York, on 
the second Teusday of May next, at ten o'clock A. M. in 
Trinity Church, at which time and place the Clergy and Lay 
Delegates are requested to attend. 

"JOHN HENRY HOBART, 
" Secretary of the Convention. 

" New-York, March 21, 1811." 

Thereupon resolved, that this Board do now proceed to 
the appointment of Delegates to the said Convention. Where- 
upon the Board having proceeded to such appointment by 
ballot, Messrs. Rufus King, Richard Harison, John Onder- 
donk, and Thomas L. Ogden, where duly chosen. 

Resolved, that a committee of this Board be appointed to 
take into consideration a late publication of the Rev. Mr. 
Jones, one of the Assistant Ministers of this Church, entitled 
" A Solemn Appeal to the Church," and that they report te 
the Vestry, at their next meeting, whether any, and if any, 
what measures ought to be taken by this Board, in relation to 
the same. 



2c7 

The Board having proceeded to the appointment of the said 
^committee, Messrs. King, Harison, Jay, Laight, and Ogden< 
were duly chosen.* 

At a Meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Church, held the 
13th of June, 1811, 
Resolved, that a committee be appointed to take into con- 
sideration the present situation of the Church, and to confer 
with the Rector and Assistant Rector upon such matters, in 
relation to the same, as they shall judge proper. 

At a Meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Church, held the 
5th of September, 1811, 

A letter addressed to the Vestry by the Rev. Mr. Jones, 
was received and read. This letter is in the words follow- 
ing: 

*' New-York, September Ath, 1811. 
" Gentlemen, 

" As the subject of the unhappy differences existing 
in the Church has been formally brought to the cognizance 
and investigation of the Vestry, I must beg to be indulged 
with the liberty of making a few remarks. 

'• That I have not earlier addressed you on the subject, has 
been owing entirely to unfeigned respect. When you were 
pleased to communicate to me, by your Clerk, certain resolu- 
tions, expressive of your disapprobation of the mode of making 
my grievances known, the thought suggested itself to me, that 
possibly an answer might be expected ; yet, upon due reflec- 
tion — upon ascertaining from a respectable member of your 
body, and of the committee by whom those resolutions 
were reported, the intended extent of that instrument ; and 
still more, upon consulting with confidential friends, to whose 
judgment I pay deference ; it appeared the most respectful 
mode to submit in silence to what I could not but lament was 
a difference of sentiment from what I felt myself compelled 
to entertain. 

* For the report of the committee, made at the meeting of the 
Corporation on the 13th of May, 1811, and the proceedings of 
the Vestry on the same, see page 2. 



" But now that the subject is brought immediately to your 
view by a pamphlet from my colleague, addressed " to the 
Vestry of Trinity Church ;" silence on my part might be 
t-onstiued into a consciousness of being unable to meet the 
charges therein contained. Justice to myself compels me to 
suggest, that it will be in my power to set the several matters 
discussed in a light very different from that in which, from 
the manner of the statement, from the absence of circum- 
etances, and from various other causes, they now appear. 
Yet feeling a reluctance to proceed with the subject, the in- 
troduction of which has met with your disapprobation ; and 
still more, being unwilling to adopt any mode of communica- 
tion which might again appear to you to be incorrect ; I have 
determined to wait for the intimation of your opinion, as to 
the line which it would be proper for me to pursue. If it shall 
be the determination of your body to take up the subject on 
the merits of the case, I must hope for indulgence with a fur- 
ther opportunity for self-defence. And in such case I must 
beg to be allowed time to collect materials necessary to my 
vindication, in such way as you shall be pleased to suggest. 

" In order however to prevent the necessity for such a re- 
sort, and from an unfeigned desire on my part to restore har- 
mony to the Church, I beg leave to state explicitly, that I am 
ready to enter upon any terms of amicable adjustment, con- 
sistent with the character of gentlemen and Christians. 

" Even without this amicable adjustment, however, if such 
cannot be obtained, there appears to be no insuperable obsta- 
cle to the restoration of peace. Resentment can surely be 
buried, and a decorous deportment observed, even though 
an entire oblivion of the past may not be obtained. For my- 
self, I can conscientiously declare that an entire disposition 
exists for the removing of all difficulties, and for the adopting 
of any measures which your wisdom may devise, for the 
restoration of peace and harmony to the Church. 
" With the greatest respect, 
" I am, Gentlemen, 
" Your obedient servant, 

'• CAVE JONES. 5r 



29 

The committee to whom was referred the resolution of the 
Vestry respecting the separation of St. George's and St. Paul's 
Chapels, and who were appointed to take into consideration 
the present state of the Church, made a report in the words 
following.* 



At a Meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Church, held the 
21th of September, 1811. 
The Rector communicated to the Vestry a paper, subsribed 
by the Rev. Mr. Cave Jones, protesting against the applica- 
tion of the 32d canon of the Church to the differences alleged 
to exist between him and the Vestry; thereupon resolved, 
that the Clerk be directed to deliver to the Right Rev. Bish- 
op Moore copy of that part of the late report of the com- 
mittee on the state of the Church which relates to those 
differences, and to request that he will be pleased to proceed 
thereupon according to the directions of the canon above 
referred to. 

Extract from the Minutes of the Vestry of Trinity Church, at 
a meeting held the 6th of November, 181 1. 

" An instrument was presented to the Board, under the 
hands of the Right Rev. Bishop Moore, D. D. Bishop of 
the Diocese, and his Presbyters, dated the 5th of November 
instant, whereby it is recommended that the Rev. Cave Jones, 
one of the Assistant Ministers of this Church, do relinquish 
immediately his title to the said office of Assistant Minister ; 
that this Vestry do pay to him the balance of his salary up to 
the date of the said instument ; and also, within the period of 
thirty days thereafter, the sum of one thousand pounds ; which 
instrument being read and duly considered, it was thereupon 
resolved as follows : 

" Resolved, that this Vestry do agree to the said terms, 
and will do every thing necessary on their part to carry the 
same into execution. 

"* For the report and the proceedings thereon, seep. 4 and 5. 



30 

* : Resolved, that a copy of the said resolution be forthwith 
delivered to the said Bishop and Presbyters. 

" Resolved farther, that the Treasurer of the Corporation 
be authorized, previously to the next meeting of the Vestry, 
to pay to the Rev. Cave Jones, the arrears of his salary as 
an Assistant Minister of this Church, including a gratuity at 
the rate of one thousand dollars per annum, such salary and 
gratuity to be computed to the time of payment or tender. 
Also to offer to pay to him the said sum of one thousand 
pounds upon his relinquishing his title to the office of an As- 
sistant Minister of this Church ; and, if he shall make such 
relinquishment, to pay him the said sum according to tire 
terms of the instrument above recited." 






SI 



DOCUMENTS 



3ELATIVE TO THE DIOCESAN AUTHORITY OF 



BISHOP MOORE. 



Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America, 

Art, 1. THERE shall be a General Convention of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Americ a 
on the third Tuesday in May, in the year of our Lord 1808, and 
on the third Tuesday in May in every third year afterwards, in 
such place as shall be determined by the Convention ; and 
special meetings may be called at other times, in the manner 
hereafter to be provided for : and this Church, in a majority 
of the States which shall have adopted this Constitution, shall 
be represented, before they shall proceed to business ; except 
that the representation from two States shall be sufficient to 
adjourn ; and in all business of the Convention, freedom of 
debate shall be allowed. 

Art. 2. The Church in each State shall be entitled to & 
representation of both the Clergy and the Laity ; which repre- 
sentation shall consist of one or more Deputies, not exceed- 
ing four of each order, chosen by the Convention of the State ; 
and in all questions, when required by the Clerical and Lay 
Representation from any State, each order shall have one 
vote ; and the majority of suffrages by States shall be conclu- 
sive in each order, provided such majority comprehend a ma- 
jority of the States represented in that order: The concur- 
rence of both orders shall be necessary to constitute a vote 
of the Convention. If the Convention of any State should 
neglect or decline to appoint Clerical Deputies, or if they 
should neglect or decline to appoint Lay Deputies ; or if any 
of those of cither order appointed should neglect to attend, or 
be prevented by sickness or any other accident, gueli State 
elhall, nevertheless, be considered as duly represented by such 



82 

Deputy or Deputies as may attend, whether Lay or Clerical. 
And if through the neglect of the Convention of any of the 
Churches which shall have adopted, or may hereafter adopt 
this Constitution, no Deputies, either Lay or Clerical, should 
attend at any General Convention, the Church in such State 
shall nevertheless be bound by the acts of such Convention. 

Art. 3. The Bishops of this Church, when there shall be 
three or more, shall, whenever General Conventions are held, 
form a separate House, with a right to originate and propose 
acts, for the concurrence of the House of Deputies, composed 
of Clergy and Laity ; and when any proposed act shall have 
passed the House of Deputies, the same shall be transmitted 
to the House of Bishops, who shall have a negative there- 
upon ; and all acts of the Convention shall be authenticated 
by both Houses. And in all cases, the House of Bishops 
shall signify to the Convention their approbation or disappro- 
bation (the latter, with their reasons in writing) within three 
days after the proposed act shall have been reported to them 
for concurrence; and in failure thereof, it shall have the 
operation of a law. But until there shall be three or more 
Bishops, as aforesaid, any Bishop attending a General Con- 
vention shall be a member ex officio, and shall vote with the 
Clerical Deputies of the State to which he belongs; and a 
Bishop shall then preside. 

Art. 4. The Bishop or Bishops in every State shall be 
chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the Con- 
vention of that State : and every Bishop of this Church shall 
confine the exercise of his Episcopal Office to his proper dio- 
cese or district ; unless requested to ordain, or confirm, or per- 
form any other act of the Episcopal Office, by any Church 
destitute of a Bishop. 

Art. 5. A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the Uni- 
ted States, not now represented, may, at any time hereafter, 
be admitted, on acceding to this Constitution. 

AH. 6. In every State the mode of trying Clergymen shall 
be instituted by the Convention of the Church therein. At 
every trial of a Bishop there shall be one or more of the 
Episcopal Order present ; and none but a Bishop shall pro- 



33 

noiince sentence of deposition or degradation from the min<< 
istry, on any Clergyman, whether Bishop, or Presbyter, or 
Deacon. 

Art. 7. No person shall be admitted to Holy Orders until 
he shall have been examined by the Bishop and by two Pres- 
byters, and shall have exhibited such testimonials, and other 
requisites, as the Canons in that case provided may direct i 
nor shall any person be ordained until he shall have subseribr 
ed the following declaration : " I do believe the holy scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, 
and to contain all things necesssary to salvation : And I do 
selemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States." 
No person ordained by a foreign Bishop shall be permitted to 
efficiate as a Minister of this Church, until he shall have com- 
plied with the canon or canons in that case provided, and have 
also subscribed the aforesaid declaration. 

Art. 8. A book of common prayer, administration of the 
sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, 
articles of religion, and a form and manner of making, ordain r 
ing, and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons, when 
established by this or a future General Convention, shall be 
used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in those States which 
shall have adopted this Constitution. 

Art. 9. This Constitution shall be unalterable, unless in 
General Convention, by the Church, in a majority of the 
States which may have adopted the same; and all alterations 
shall be first proposed in one General Convention, and made 
known to the several State Conventions before they shall be 
finally agreed to, or ratified, in the ensuing Oeneral Con* 
vention. 

Done in the General Convention of the Bishops, Clergy, 

and Laity of the Church, the second day of October, 

1789, 



34. 

Extract from the Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America, agreed on in several General 
Conventions of said Church, and set forth, with Alterations 
and Additions, in General Convention, 1808. 

CANON I. 

Of the Orders of Ministers in this Church, 

In this Church there shall always be three orders in the 
Ministry, viz. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 

CANON II. 

Of the Election of Bishops. 

No Diocese or State shall proceed to the election or ap- 
pointment of a Bishop, unless there be at least six officiating 
Presbyters residing therein, and who, agreeably to the Canons 
of the Church, may be qualified to vote for a Bishop ; a ma- 
jority of whom at least shall concur in such election. But 
the Conventions of two or more Dioceses or States, having 
together nine or .'more such Presbyters, may associate and 
join in the election of a Bishop. 

CANON III. 

Certificates to be produced on the part of the Bishops elect. 

Every Bishop elect, before his consecration, shall produce 
to the Bishops to whom he is presented for that holy office, 
from the Convention by whom he is elected a Bishop, and 
from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in General 
Convention, certificates, respectively, in the following 
words, viz. 

Testimony from the Members of the Convention in the State or 
Diocese from whence the Person is recommended for Conse- 
cration. 

We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensible how im- 
portant it is that the sacred office of a Bishop should not be 
unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty 
to bear testimony on this solemn occasion, without partiality 



33 

or affection, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify, 
that A. B. is not, so far as we are informed, justly liable to 
evil report, either for error in religion, or for viciousness in 
life ; and that we do not know or believe there is any imped- 
iment on account of which he ought not to be consecrated to 
that holy office. We do moreover jointly and severally de- 
clare, that we do in our consciences believe him to be of such 
sufficiency in good learning, such soundness in the faith, and 
of such virtuous and pure manners, and godly conversation, 
that he is apt and meet to exercise the office of a Bishop, to 
the honour of God and the edifying of his Church, and to be 
an wholesome example to the flock of Christ. 

The above certificate shall be presented to the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies in General Convention. 

Testimony from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in Gen- 
eral Convention, 
We, whose names are underwritten, fully sensible how im- 
portant it is that the sacred office of a Bishop should not be 
unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty 
to bear testimony on this solemn occasion, without partiality 
or affection, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify, 
that A. B. is not, so far as we are informed, justly liable to 
evil report, either for error in religion, or for viciousness of 
life ; and that we do not know or believe there is any impedi- 
ment on account of which he ought not to be consecrated to 
that holy office ; but that he hath, as we believe, led his life, 
for three years last past, piously, soberly, and honestly. 

CANON IV. 

Of Standing Committees. 

In every State or Diocese there shall be a Standing Com 
mittee, to be appointed by the Convention thereof. 

CANON V. 

Of the Consecration of Bishops in the Recess of the General 
Convention. 
If, during the recess of the General Convention, the 
Church in any State or Diocese should be desirous of the 



36 

consecration of a Bishop, the Standing Committee of the 
Church in such State or Diocese may, by their President, or 
by some person or persons specially appointed, communicate 
the desire to the Standing Committees of the Churches in the 
different States, together with copies of the necessary testi- 
monials; and if the major number of the Standing, Commit- 
tees, shall consent to the proposed consecration, the Stand- 
ing Committee of the State or Diocese concerned, may com- 
municate the evidences of such consent, together with the 
other testimonials, to any three Bishops of this Church, who 
may thereon proceed to the consecration. The evidences of 
the consent of the different Standing Committees shall be in 
the form prescribed for the House of Clerical and Lay De- 
puties, in the General Convention ; and, without the aforesaid 
requsites, no consecration shall take place during the recess 
of the General Convention. 

CANON XXV. 

Notorious Crimes and Scandals to be censured. 

If any persons within this Church offend their brethren by 
any wickedness of life, such persons shall be repelled from 
the holy communion, agreeably to the rubric, and may be 
further proceeded against, to the depriving them of all privi- 
leges of Church membership, according to such rules or pro- 
cess as may be provided, either by the General Convention, 
or by the Convention in the different States or Dioceses. 

CANON XXVII. 

Of publishing the Sentence of Degradation against a Clergy- 
man. 

Whenever a Clergyman shall be degraded, agreeably to 
the Canons of any particular Church in the union, the Bish- 
op who pronounces sentence shall, without delay, cause the 
sentence of degradation to be published from every pulpit 
where there may be an officiating Minister, throughout the 
Diocese or District in which the degraded Minister resided ; 



37 

and also shall give information of the sentence to all Bishops 
of this church ; and, where there is no Bishop, to the Stand- 
ing Committee. 



Extracts from the Journal of a Special Convention of tKe 

Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, 

September, 1801. 

Extract from the " list of the Clergy and Lay Delegates who 
composed this Convention. 

**. The Right Rev. Samuel Provoost, Bishop of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York ; the Rev- 
Benjamin Moore, D. D. Rector of Trinity Church in the 
city of New-York; Abram Beach, D. D. John Henry Hobart, 
Cave Jones, Assistant Ministers of Trinity Church in the 
city of New- York." 



Extract from the Journal of the same Convention. 

%i The Right Rev. Bishop Provoost addressed the Conven- 
tion, and resigned his Episcopal Jurisdiction of this Diocese." 

" On motion of Mr. Harison, resolved that a committee be 
appointed to consider and report what measures are neces- 
sary to be pursued in the present situation of this Church. 

" The following gentlemen were accordingly appointed by 
ballot, viz. the Rev. Dr. Moore, Rev. Dr. Beach, Rev. Mr. 
Wilkins, Robert Watts, and Richard Harison, Esquires." 

" The committee appointed to consider and report what 
measures are necessary to be pursued in the present situation 
of this Church, made a report as follows, viz. 

' The Right Rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D. having declar- 
ed that he resigned his jurisdiction as Bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in this State, and having expressed his 
affectionate wishes for the prosperity of the Church in gene- 
ral, and the individuaj members of the Convention, 



38 

; Resolved that the Convention return their thanks to the 
Bishop for his kind wishes, and whilst they regret that he 
should have judged himself under the necessity of quitting so 
suddenly the exercise of the Episcopal Office, and those 
solemn and important duties which are connected with it, 
they beg leave to assure him of their sincere and fervent prayers 
that Divine Providence may so guide and govern him in all 
his ways, as will most conduce both to his temporal and eter- 
nal felicity. 

' Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to 
Bishop Provoost by the Secretary of the Convention. 

' Resolved also, that it be recommended to the Standing 
Committee to call a Special Convention, to meet in this 
city in the month of November next, for the purpose of 
choosing a suitable person to be consecrated as a Bishop, 
and to have the charge of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the State of New-York.' 

" The preamble, and the first and second resolutions of 
the foregoing report were unanimously adopted by the Conven- 
tion. The last resolution was rejected. 

" On motion of Mr. Harison, resolved, that this Conven- 
tion will proceed to-morrow morning to the election of a 
suitable person to be recommended for consecration as Bish- 
op of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State. 

" A memorial was presented from the corporation of Christ 
Church, in the city of New-York, on the situation of their 
Church. 

" On motion of the Rev. Mr. Hobart, resolved, that this 
Convention cannot, with propriety, act upon the memorial 
from the corporation of Christ Church while this Church is 
destitute of a Bishop." 

" The Convention then proceeded, by ballot, to the choice 
of a person to be recommended for consecration as Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State, and on 
counting the votes, it appeared, that the Rev. Benjamin 
Moore, D. D. Rector of Trinity Church in the city of New- 
York, was unanimously chosen by Clergy and Laity. 1 ' 

" The members then proceeded to sign the testimonial re 
quired by the Canon^of the General Convention in favour 0/ 



$9 

the Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop elect of this 
Church." 



Extracts from the " Journal of the Proceedings of the Bishops*, 
Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America; in a Convention held in the city 
of Trenton, in New- Jersey, from Tuesday, September 8, to 
Saturday, September 12, 1801." 

Journal of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. 

" The Rev. Dr. Beach presented the testimonial required 
by the Canons, from the State Convention of New-York, in 
favour of the Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. the Bishop elect 
of that State. 

" On motion, the following message was sent by the Rev. 
Mr. Hobart to the House of Bishops : ' The House of Cleri- 
cal and Lay Deputies wish to know from the House of Bish- 
ops whether they have received any communication from 
Bishop Provoost, on the subject of his resignation of his 
Episcopal jurisdiction in the State of New-York.' 

" A communication was received from the House of Bish- 
ops on the subject of the foregoing message from this House. 

" The House then proceeded to sign the testimonial re- 
quired by the Canons in favour of the Rev. Benjamin Moore, 
D. D. Bishop elect of the State of New-York; which to- 
gether with the testimonial from the State Convention of 
New-York, was ordered to be presented to the House of 
Bishops." 

a A message was received from the House of Bishops, in- 
forming this House that they had read and approved the testi- 
monials in favour of the Rev. Dr. Benjamin Moore, Bishop 
elect of the State of New-York, and had appointed to-mor- 
row morning, ten o'clock, for his consecration. 

" On motion, resolved, that the Rev. Mr. Bend inform the 
House of Bishops that this House will attend the conse- 
cration of the Rev. Dr. Moore at the appointed time." 

" The House then adjourned to attend divine service at 
St. Michael's Church, Trenton, on occasion of the consecra- 



40 

lion of the Rev. Dr. Moore, Bishop elect of the Church in 
New-York." 



Journal of the House of Bishops of the same Convention. 
1801. 

c * A letter was laid before this house from the Right Revv 
Bishop Provoost, addressed to Bishop White, as follows : 

4 New-York, Sept. 7, 1801. 
*■ Right Rev. and dear Sir, 

' I think it my duty to request, that, as 
President of the House of Bishops, you will inform that ven- 
erable body, that, induced by ill health, and some melancholy 
occurrences in my family, and an ardent wish to retire from 
all public employment, I resigned at the late meeting of our 
Church Convention, my jurisdiction as Bishop of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York. 
' I am, with great regard, 
* Dear and Right Rev. Sir, 
4 Your affectionate brother, 

4 SAMUEL PROVOOST, 
6 Right Rev. Bishop White.' 

" A message from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
was read as follows : — 4 The House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies wish to know from the House of Bishops, whether 
they have received any communication from Bishop Provoost 
on the subject of the resignation of his Episcopal jurisdiction 
in the State of New-York.' 

" The House of Bishops having considered the subject 
brought before them by the letter of Bishop Provoost, and 
by the message from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
touching the same, can see no grounds on which to believe 
that the contemplated resignation is consistent with Eccles- 
iastical order, or with the practice of Episcopal Churches in 
any ages, or with the tenor of the office of consecration. 
Accordingly, while they sympathize most tenderly with their 



41 

brother Bishop Provoost, on account of that ill health, and 
those melancholy occurrences which have led to the design 
in question, they judge it to be inconsistent with the sacred 
trust committed to them to recognize the Bishop's act as an 
effectual resignation of his Episcopal jurisdiction. Never- 
theless, being sensible of the present exigencies of the 
Church of New-York, and approving of their making provi- 
sion for the actual discharge of the duties of the Episco- 
pacy, the Bishops of this House are ready to consecrate to 
the office of Bishop any person who may be presented to 
them with the requisite testimonials from the General and 
State Conventions, and of whose religious, moral, and lite- 
rary character, due satisfaction may be given. But this 
House must be understood to be explicit in their declaration, 
that they shall consider such person as Assistant or Coadjutor 
Bishop during Bishop Provoost's life, although competent in 
point of character to all the Episcopal duties; the extent in 
ivhich the same shall be discharged by him to be dependent 
on such regulations as expediency may dictate to the Church 
in New- York, grounded on the indisposition of Bishop Pro- 
voost, and with his concurrence. 

" The Secretary not being present, Bishop Jarvis is re- 
quested to deliver the above as a message to the House of 
Clerical and Lay Deputies, and to furnish that House with 
a copy of Bishop Provoost's letter." 

" The testimonial from the Convention of the Church in 
the State of New-York, in favour of the Rev. Dr. Benjamin 
Moore, as Bishop elect of the Church in that State ; and 
also the testimonial from the House of Clerical and Lay Dep- 
uties, now sitting, in favour of the said Dr. Moore, being 
received and read and found agreeable to the prescribed forms, 
resolved, that the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies be 
informed that the Bishops now present are ready to proceed 
to the consecration of the Rev. Dr. Moore to-morrow morn- 
ing at ten o'clock." 

" The House adjourned, in order to attend the consecration 
of the Bishop elect of the Church in the State of New. York." 

" The Right Rev. Bishop Moore, who was consecrated this 
morning, appeared in the House and took bis seat." 



*2 

" The Certificate of the Consecration of the Right Rev. Bishop 
Moore is as follows. 

" Know all men by these presents, that we, William White, 
D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State 
of Pennsylvania, presiding Bishop ; Thomas John Claggett, 
D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
State of Maryland ; and Abraham Jarvis, D. D. Bishop of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Connecticut; 
under the protection of Almighty God, in St. Michael's 
Church, in the city of Trenton, on Friday, the 11th day of 
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and one, did then and there rightly and canonically con- 
secrate our beloved in Christ, Benjamin Moore, D. D. Rec> 
tor of Trinity Church in the city of New- York, of whose 
sufficiency in good learning, soundness in the faith and purity 
of manners, we were fully ascertained, into the office of Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- 
York ; to which the said Benjamin Moore, D^ D. hath been 
elected by the Convention of the said State, in consequence 
of the inability of the Right Rev. Bishop Provoost, and of his 
declining all Episcopal jurisdiction within the said State. 

" In testimony whereof, we have signed our names, and 
caused our seals to be affixed. 

" Given in the city of Trenton, this eleventh day of Sep- 
tember, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun 
dred and one. 

" WILLIAM WHITE. L. S. 

" THOMAS J. CLAGGETT, L. S. 

" ABRAHAM JARVIS." L. S. 



Extract from the " Journal of the Proceedings of the Bishops^ 
Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America, in a General Convention, held 
in the city of New-Haven, from May 21, to May 24, A. D. 
1811." - 
" Know all men by these presen-ia* that we, William 

White, D. D, Bishop of the Protestaftt Episcopal Church in 



43 

Che State of Pennsylvania, presiding Bishop ; Samuel Pro- 
voost, D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the State of New- York; and Abraham J arvis, D. D. Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Connecti- 
cut; under the protection of Almighty God, in Trinity 
Church, in the city of New-York, on Wednesday, the twen- 
ty-ninth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and eleven, did then and there rightly and 
canonically consecrate our beloved in Christ, John Henry 
Hobart, D. D. an Assistant Minister of Trinity Church in the. 
city of New- York, of whose sufficiency in good learning, 
soundness in the faith, and purity of manners, we were fully 
ascertained, into the office of Bishop of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in the State of New- York, to which he hath 
been elected by the Convention of said State; to assist the 
Bishops of the Church in said State in the duties of the 
Episcopal office, and to succeed in case of survivorship. 
** Given in the city of New-York, this twenty-ninth day of 
May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and eleven. 

« WILLIAM WHITE, L S. 

* SAMUEL PROVOOST, L S. 

« ABRAHAM J ARVIS." L S, 



Extract from the Journal of the Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, October, 1802, 
being the first Convention after Bishop Moore's consecra- 
tion. 

" List of the Clergy and Lay Delegates who composed 
the Convention. 

" The Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the S tate of New- 
York; the Rev. Theodosius Bartow, Rector of Trinity 
Church, New-Rochelle ; Abraham Beach, D. D. an Assistant 
Minister of Trinity Church, New-York ; Richard Bradford, 
Rector of St Luke's Church, Catskill ; Philander Chase* 



4* 

Rector of Christ Church Poughkeepsie, and Trinity Church 
Fishkill ; Elias Cooper, Rector of St. John's Church, Yon- 
kers; William Harris, Rector of St. Mark's Church, Bowery, 
New- York; Seth Hart, Rector of St. George's Church, 
Hempstead; John Henry Hobart, an Assistant Minister of 
Trinity Church, New-York, John Ireland, Rector of St. 
Ann's Church, Brooklyn; Cave Jones an Assistant Minister 
of Trinity Church, New-£ork." 
Extract from the Journal of the Convention of the Protestant 

Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, October, 1809. 

" List of the Clergy and Lay Delegates who attended the 
Convention. 

" The Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York ; the 
Rev. Parker Adams, Miss onary ; Amos G. Baldwin, Rec- 
tor of Trinity Church Utica ; Theodosius Bartow, Rector 
of Trinity Church, New-Rochelle ; Abraham Beach, D. D. 
an Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New- York ; Na- 
thanael Bowen, Rector of Grace Church, New-York ; Da- 
vid Butler, Rector of St. Paul's Church, Troy, and Trinity 
Church, Lansingburgh ; Abraham L. Clarke, Rector of St- 
James's Church, Newtown; Elias Cooper, Rector of St. 
John's Church, Yonkers; Henry I. Feltus, Rector St. Ann's 
Church,BrookIyn ; Seth Hart, Rector of St. George's Church, 
Hempstead, with which is connected Christ Church, North- 
Hemp^tead; Samuel Haskill, Rector of Christ Church, Rye ; 
John Henry Hobart, D. D. an Assistant Minister of Trinity 
Church, New-York ; Thomas Y. Kow, an Assistant Minister 
of Trinity Church, New-York; Cave Jones an Assistant 
Minister of Trinity Church, New-York; Jonathan Judd, Rec- 
tor of St. John's Church, Johnstown, and St. Ami's Church, 
"Fort-Hunter; Thomas Ly ell, Rector of Christ Church,New- 
York ; Richard C .Moore, D. D. Rector of St. Stephen's 
Church, New-York." 

" The Convention adjourned. 

" BENJAMIN MOORE, D. D. Bishop of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, New-York, 
" Attested, 

^ JOHN H* HOBART, Secretary to the Convention." 



45 

Extract from the Journal of the Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the State of New-York , October, 181(h 

" List of the Clergy and Lay Delegates who attended the 
Convention. 

" The Right Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. Bishop of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York ; 
the Rev. Parker Adams, Missionary ; Amos G. Baldwin, 
Rector of Trinity Church, CJtica; Abraham Beach, 
D. D. an Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York ; 
Nathanael Bowen, Rector of Grace Church, New-York; 
Barzillai Bulkley, Rector of St. George's, Flushing ; Elias 
Cooper, Rector of St. John's Church, Yonkers; Henry I. 
Feltus, Rector of St Ann's Church, Brooklyn; William 
Harris, Rector of St. Mark's Church in the Bowery, New- 
York;*Seth Hart, Rector of St. George's Church, Hemp- 
stead, with which is connected Christ Church, North-Hemp- 
stead; Samuel Haskill, Rector of Christ Church, Rye; 
John Henry Hobart, D. D. an Assistant Minister of Trinity 
Church, New-York; Thomas Y. How, an Assistant Minis- 
ter of Trinity Church, New-York; Cave Jones, an Assistant 
Minister of Trinity Church, New-York ; Thomas Lyell, Rec- 
tor of Christ Church, New-York; Richard C. Moore, D. D. 
Rector of St. Stephen's Church, New-York." 
" The Convention adjourned. 

" BENJAMIN MOORE, D. D. Bishop of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- 
York, and President of the Convention. 
4i Attested, JOHN HENRY HOBART, Secretary." 



Extract from ike Journal of the Convention of the Protestant. 
Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, 1811. 

" List of the Clergy and Lay Delegates who attended the 
Convention. 

" The Right Rev. John Henry Hobart, D. D. Assistant 
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of 
New-York ; the Rev. Abraham Beach, D. D. Assistant Rec- 
tor of Trinity Church, New- York; John Bowden, D. P. 



$g 

Professor of Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy in Columbia 
College ; Nathanael Bowen, Rector of Grace Church, New- 
York; Barzillai Bulkley, Rector of St. George's Church, 
Flushing; David Butler, Rector of St. Paul's Church, Troy, 
and Trinity Church, Lansingburgh ; Elias Cooper, Rector 
of St. John's Church, Yonkers ; Henry I. Feltus, Rector of 
St. Ann's Church, Brooklyn ; William Harris, D. D. Rector 
of St. Mark's Church, in the Bowery, New-York ; Seth Hart, 
Rector of St. George's Church, Hempstead, with which is 
connected Christ Church, North-Hempstead ; Samuel Haskill, 
Rector of Christ Church, Rye ; Thomas Y. How, an Assist- 
ant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York ; Cave Jones, an 
Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, NewYork ; Thomas 
Lyell, Rector of Christ Church, New- York; R. C. Moore, 
J). D. Rector of St. Stephen's Church, New- York ; Daven- 
port Phelps, Missionary in the western parts of the State ; 
Joseph Prentice, Rector of Trinity Church, Athens ; John 
Reed, Rector of Christ Church, Poughkeepsie ; Samuel Ful- 
ler, Missionary." 

The Convention adjourned. 

" JOHN HENRY HOBART, D. D. Assistant 
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
State of New-York, and President of the Con- 
vention. 
" Attested, THOMAS LYELL, Secretary,'* 



Extract from the Journal of tJie Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, 1812. 

u List of the Clergy and Lay Delegates who attended the 
Convention. 

" Clergy. The Right Rev. John Henry Hofcart, D-D. 
Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
State of New-York ; the Rev. Amos G. Baldwin, Rector of 
Trinity Church, Utica ; Theodosius Bartow, Rector of Trin- 
ity Church, New-Rochelle ; Abraham Beach, D. D. Assist- 
ant Rector of Trinity Church, New- York; William Berrian- 



47 

an Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New- York ; Na 
thanael Bowen, Rector of Grace Church, New-York ; John 
Bowden, D. D. Professor of Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy 
in Columbia College; Barzillai Bulkley, Rector of St. George's 
Church, Flushing; Orin Clark, Deacon, Missionary; EliasCoo- 
per, Rector of St. John's Church, Yonkers ; Henry I. Feltus, 
Rector of St. Ann's Church, Brooklyn ; Samuel Fuller, Mis- 
sionary ; William Harris, D. D. Rector of St. Mark's Church, 
in the Bowery, New- York ; Samuel Haskill, Rector of Christ 
Church, Rye; SethHart, Rector of St. George's Church, Hemp- 
stead; Thomas Y. How, D. D. an Assistant Minister of 
Trinity Church, New-York ; Thomas Lyell, Rector of Christ 
Church, New- York; Richard C.Moore, D. D. Rector of St, 
Stephen's Church, New- York; Daniel Nash, Rector of St. 
John's Church, Otsego, St. Luke's, Richfield, and Harmony 
Church, Buttemutts, and other Churches in Otsego county; 
Joseph Perry, Rector of St. Paul's Church, Ballston Spa, and 
St. James's, Milton; Joseph Prentice, Rector of Trinity 
Church, Athens, and Christ Church, Hudson; John Reed, 
Rector of Christ Church, Poughkeepsie ; Isaac Wilkins, 
D. D. Rector of St. Peter's Church, Westchester, and St. 
Paul's Church, Eastchester. 

" The following Clergy, not regularly entitled to seats* 
were admitted to the sittings of the Convention : 

" The Rev. Nathan B. Burges, of Caroline Church, Brook- 
haven, Long-Island ; Edmund D. Barry, Principal of the 
Protestant Episcopal Academy, New-York; John M* Vicar, 
of St. James's, Hyde-Park; Timothy Clowes, Deacon, St. 
Peter's Church, Albany; Samuel Jarvis, St. Michael's Church, 
Bloomingdale, and St. James's, Hamilton-Square; John Bra- 
dy, Deacon, St. George's Church, New-York; Ralph Willis- 
ton, Zion Church, New-York; Birdseye G. Noble, Deacon, 
St. George's Church, Hempstead; Gilbert H. Sayre, Grace 
Church, Jamaica ; William Powell, Deacon, St. Andrew's 
Church, Coldenham ; Benjamin T. Onderdonk, Deacon, New- 
York; William E.Wyatt, Deacon, St. James's Church, New- 
town, Long-Island; John C. Rudd, of Elizabethtown, New- 



48 

Jersey 5 Adam Empie, of Wilmington, North-Carolina ; John 
V.Bartow, of Savannah, Georgia; Theodore Dehon, D. D* 
Bishop elect of the Church in South-Carolina. 

u Lay Delegates. Trinity Church, New- York, Richard 
Harison, David M. Clarkson, Robert Troup, Thomas L. 
Ogden; Grace Church, New- York, John Slidell, Wright Post, 
David B. Ogden ; Christ Church, New- York, George Domi- 
nick, Thomas Harvey; St. Mark's, Bowery, New- York, 
JVEangle Minthorne, Edward Lyde, Andrew Ogden ; Du St. 
Esprit, New- York, Cadwallader D. Colden, John Pintard, 
John B. Church; St. Stephen's, New-York, Henry Pope, 
Tunis Bergh, David Marsh, John Pollion ; St. Michael's, 
Bloomingdale, New-York, Valentine Nutter, William A. 
Davis, Frederick Depeyster, Isaac Jones; St. James's, 
Hamilton-Square, New-York, Martin Hoffman, Peter Scher- 
merhorn; Zion Church, New-York, John P. Ritter, Joseph 
Graff, Lazarus Beach ; Christ Church, Poughkeepsie, John 
Davis, David Brooks; St. James's, Newtown, Timothy 
Roach, John Ebbitts ; St. Ann's, Brooklyn, James B. Clarke, 
William Gregg, John Cornell; St. George's, Flushing, Rich- 
ard Piatt; Trinity Church, Fairfield, Andrew A.Bartow; 
Christ Church, Hudson, William E. Norman ; Trinity Church, 
Geneva, Thomas Lowthrop ; Grace Church, Jamaica, Rufus 

King ; St. George's, Hempstead, Benjamin Treadwell, 

Hewlet ; Trinity Church, New-Rochelle, David Coutant, 
Theophilus Bartow ; St. James's Church, Goshen, William 
Thompson, George D. Wickham ; St. John's Church, Yonkers, 
Henry White, Elijah Valentine ; Trinity Church, Fishkill, 
Daniel C. Verplanck; Christ Church, Rye, Peter J. Munro, 
John P. Delancey ; St. Luke's Church, Cattskill, William 
Seaman; Trinity Church, Utica, Morris S.Miller; St. 
James's, North-Salem, Joshua Purdy; St. Andrew's Church, 
Staten-Island, Joseph Bedell, Alexander Carnes, John Van- 
dyke; St. James's Church, Hyde-Park, Samuel Bard, Na- 
thaniel Pendleton ; Christ Church, Cooper's Town, Isaac 
Cooper; St. George's Church, Newburgh, David Fowler, 
Thomas Farmer ; Grace Church, Waterford, John Vibbard ; 
St. Peter's Church, Stamford,. Joseph D. Bears; St. Peter's 






Church, Westchester, Abijah Hammond, Richard V. Morris ; 
St. Paul's Church, Eastchester, Isaac Ward; St. Peter's 3 
Pultneyviile, Henry Laight; Trinity Church, Athens, Delu- 
cena Backus ; St. George's Church, New- York, Harry Peters, 
G. H. Van Wagenen, Francis Dominick, Edward W.Laight; 
St. Matthew's, Unadilla, Curtis Noble." 

" A letter from the Right Rev. Bishop Provoost, addressed 
to the Rev. Clerical, and to the Lay Members of the Conven- 
tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New* 
York, was read, which is as follows, viz. 

8 To the Rev. Clerical, and to the Lay Members of the Con; 
vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State 
New-York* 

* Brethren, 

c This being the day appointed by our Church for your 
Convention, I think proper to address you. 

'. You well know that in the year 1801 I proffered to the 
State Convention a resignation of my jurisdiction as Bishop 
of this Diocese, and that immediately afterwards I commu- 
nicated to the General Convention, then in session at Tren- 
ton, information of the step I had taken. For a long time I 
fully believed that my act of resignation was recognized as 
effectual. But having some time since become acquainted 
with the proceedings of the State and General Conventions 
in relation to this subject, and feeling a due respect for the 
sentiments of the General Convention, so strongly and deci- 
sively expressed in the resolution of the House of Bishops 
of the 7th of September, 1801, I think it my duty to inform 
you, that though it has not pleased God to bless me with 
health that will enable me to discharge all the duties of a 
Diocesan, and for that reason I cannot now attend the Con- 
vention ; yet I am ready to act in deference to the resolution 
above mentioned, and to concur in any regulations which ex- 
pediency may dictate to the Church; without which concur- 
rence I am, after the resolution of the House of Bishops,, 
bound to consider every Episcopal ast as g&authori^. 



. 30 

With my earnest prayers to Almighty God for the prospe- 
rity and peace of our Church, for the spiritual welfare and 
temporal happiness of all its members, 

'lam, my dearly beloved Brethren, 
' Your affectionate Father in God, 

6 SAMUEL PROVOOST, 
8 Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
State of New- York, and Diocesan of the same. 
New-York, Uh Oct. 1812.' 

S Whereupon the following resolutions were proposed and 
considered : 

' Whereas by the constitution of this Church the right of 
electing the Bishop thereof is vested in, and appertains to 
the Convention of this State : And whereas the jurisdiction 
of the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church as the 
Diocesan thereof may be resigned, although the spiritual 
character or order of the Bishop is indelible ; and such re- 
signation, when the same is accepted by the Convention, 
creates a vacancy in the office of Diocesan Bishop of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church in this State : And whereas the 
Bight Rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D. being then the Diocesan 
Bishop of the said Church in this State, did, on the third day 
of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
hundred and one, resign his Episcopal jurisdiction of this 
Diocese to the Convention of the said Church in this State ; 
and the said Convention did, on the next day, accept the said 
resignation, and, on the following day, proceeded to the 
choice, by ballot, of a person to succeed the said Diocesan 
Bishop; and thereupon the Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. was 
unanimously chosen by the Clergy and Laity, and received 
from them, as Bishop elect, of this Church, the testimonial re- 
quired by the Canon of the General Convention : and whereas 
the said Benjamin Moore was, on the eleventh day of the said 
month of September, rightly and canonically consecrated into 
the office of Bishop of the said Church, and from that time 
hath exercised the powers and jurisdiction of Diocesan 
Bishop in this State : And whereas this Convention hath 
been given to understand that doubts have been entertained 



u 

whether the office and jurisdiction of Diocesan Bishop be- 
came vacant by the said resignation and acceptance thereof, 
and whether the said Benjamin Moore wasof right the Diocesan 
Bishop of the said Church in this State by virtue of the elec- 
tion and consecration herein before mentioned : And whereas 
this Convention hath further understood that since the last 
Convention the said Bishop Provoost hath assumed, and by 
his letter this day read in Convention does claim, the title 
and character of Diocesan Bishop : — Now, therefore, in order 
to obviate the said doubts, and with a view to restore and 
preserve the peace and order of the Church, this Convention 
doth hereby resolve and declare, 

' That, the Right Rev. Samuel Provoost, from and immedi- 
ately after the acceptance of his resignation by the Conven- 
tion of the Church in this State, ceased to be the Diocesan 
Bishop thereof, and could no longer rightfully exercise the 
functions or jurisdiction appertaining to that office ; that hav- 
ing ceased to be the Diocesan Bishop as aforesaid, he could 
neither resume, nor be restored to that character by any act 
of his own or of the General Convention, or either of its 
houses, without the consent and participation of the said 
State Convention, which consent and participation the said 
Bishop Provoost has not obtained; and that his claim to such 
character is therefore unfounded. 

' And further this Convention doth declare and resolve, 
that the spiritual order of Bishop having been canonically 
conferred upon the said Benjamin Moore, he became thereby, 
in consequence of the said previous election, ipso facto, and 
of right, the Diocesan Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in this State, and as such, well entitled to all the 
jurisdiction and pre-eminence belonging to that office, and 
which have been, and may be, canonically exercised by him 
personally, or through his Coadjutor, in the said character. 

' And this Convention, in their own names, and for the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in this State, do hereby solemn- 
ly declare and acknowledge the said Benjamin Moore, and 
no other person, to be their true and lawful Diocesan Bishop ; 
and that respect and obedience ought of right to be paid i@ 
him as such. 5 



6% 

& The question on the passage of the above resolutioiii 
being taken, they were carried in the affirmative. 

" YEAS.— Clergy. The Rev. Amos G. Baldwin, Theo- 
dosius Bartow, Abraham Beach, 1). I). William Berrian> 
Nathanael Bowen, John Bowden, D. D. Barzillai Bulkley, 
Orin Clark, Elias Cooper, Samuel Fuller, Samuel Haskill, 
SethHart, Thomas Y. How, D. D. Thomas Ly ell, Daniel 
Nash, Joseph Prentice, John Reed, Isaac Wilkins, D. D. 

" Laity.* St. Andrew's Church, Staten-Island, a church 
and chapel; St. George's i hurch, Hempstead, a church and 
chapel; Grace Church New-York ; Christ Church, New- 
York; Du St. Esprit, New-York; Trinity Church, New- 
York, a church and two chapels; St. Mark's Church, Bowery 
New-York ; St. Stephen's Church, New-York ; St. James's 
Church, New-York; St. Ann's Bhurch Brooklyn; St. George's 
flushing; Trinity Church Fairfield; Christ Church, Hudson l 
Trinity Church, Geneva; Grace Church, Jamaica; Trinity 
Church New-Rochelle ; St. James's Church, Goshen ; St. 
John's Church, Yonkers ; Christ Church, Rye ; St. Luke's 
Church, Cattskill; Trinity Church, Utica; St. James's 
Church, Hyde-Park; Christ Church, Cooper's Town; St. 
Peter's Church, Stamford; St. Peter's Church, Westchester; 
iSt. Peter's Church, Pultney ville ; Trinity Church, Athens ; 
St. George's Church, New-York; St. Matthew's Church* 
tJnadilla. 

<l NAYS.— Clergy. None. 

Laity. St Michael's Church, Bloomingdale ; Trinity 
Church, Fishkill. 

" St. George's Church, Newburgh, divided. 

" The Rev. Dr. Moore, the Rev. Dr. Harris, and the Rev 
Mr. Feltus, were excused from voting, and expressed their 
determination to submit to the decision of the Convention. 

* « Agreeably to the "7th article of the Constitution of this 
Church the Laity voted by congregations ; and when more than 
one Church or Chapel is united under one Vestry, the Delegate 
&r Delegates of such Vestry is entitled to a vote for each Church 
or Chapel" 



53 

" u The Delegate from St. James's Church North-Salem^ 
Xras also excused from voting. 

" On motion, resolved, that copies of the letter from 
the Right Rev. Bishop Provoost, addressed to the Clerical, 
and to the Lay Members of the Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, and of the 
above resolutions, be sent to the Right Rev Bishop Moore, 
the Diocesan of the Church in this State, and to the Right 
Rev. the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States ; and also a copy of the resolutions to the 
Bight Rev. Bishop Provoost." 

" The Convention adjourned. 

" JOHN HENRY HOBART, D. D. 

" Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the State of New-York. 

<* Attested THOMAS LYELL, Secretary." 



Mr. Emmet having read the bond between the Rector and 
Inhabitants of the city of New-York, in Communion of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, and 
the Rev. Cave Jones, CD. Colden, Esq. on the part of the 
plaintiff, proceeded to open the cause. 

Mr. Colden. 
May it please your Honors, 

IT appears from the instrument just read, that Mr. 
Jones was called by the vestry of Trinity Church to officiate 
as one of their assistant ministers, in January 1801. He 
continued faithfully and zealously to discharge the duties of 
that office until November 1810. At that time certain pro- 
ceedings were instituted against him under a canon of the 
church, which have terminated in a sentence of suspension, 
which has excluded him from the exercise of the functions of 
his holy office in this diocese, as well as in every state in 
the Union. 

By this means he has not only been degraded in his pro- 
fesssion, but has been deprived of the meaus of gaining a 



i>4 

support for himself or for his family. It is now to be decided 
by your honors, whether these proceedings, which have been 
attended with such direful consequences to Mr. Jones and 
his unfortunate family, are sanctioned by the laws of the 
church or the laws of the land. 

In the course of what has heretofore passed in relation to 
this cause, your honors have thought it necessary to caution 
those who were to appear before you, from indulging an un- 
due warmth. If at any time, I hare imposed too little re- 
straint on my feelings, I am most sincerely sorry for it. I 
well know that any intemperance, upon an occasion like this, 
and before such a tribunal, can only injure myself and can do 
my client no good. It is true, I rise under the most animated 
and zealous feelings. But, if I know myself, they are dis- 
interested feelings. Until this controversy, I have had the 
honor to know but very little of any of the parties concerned 
in it. I have taken up the cause of Mr. Jones, because I 
did believe, and I persevere in it, because I do believe him to 
to be an injured, oppressed and persecuted man. But though 
it is in vain for me to promise to preserve that calmness of 
manner, which I often envy in others, I trust I shall not 
transgress those bounds of moderation, which the nature of 
this controversy and a due respect for the characters impli- 
cated in it, seems to preclude. 

The first question, which presents itself for the considera- 
tion of the arbitrators is, whether the call of Mr. Jones was 
for life or during good behaviour ? or whether it was to be 
considered as placing Mr. Jones at the will of the vestry, and 
to be dismissed at their pleasure ? We contend, that the call 
was for life, and that Mr. Jones could not be dismissed until 
legally convicted of some misdemeanor, which might render 
him unworthy to discharge the duties of his office. But the 
vestry have uniformly shrunk from an investigation of 
Mr. Jones's conduct. His very enemies have been obliged 
to bear witness to his irreproachable character, and to the 
purity and zeal with which he has served as a minister of the 
church. It is for this reason, (as will by and by be explain- 
ed) . that they have adopted a course, by which they have 



55 

hoped to destroy, without affording him, an opportunity for 
vindication or defence, and even without an accusation. 

The letter of call of Mr. Jones is in the following words : 

Rev. Sir, 

We are commissioned by the vestry of Trinity Church 
to inform you, that you are invited by a vote of that beard, 
passed this day, to accept the office of an assistant minister 
in the churches under their care, upon the same terms on 
which the other assistant ministers are placed : the salary 
is five hundred pounds per annum. We are further to remark, 
that it is required that you (in conjunction with the Rev. Mr. 
Hobart) perform divine service in one of the churches on 
Sunday evenings. 

We are, Rev. Sir, 

Your very humble servants, 
JOHN CHARLTON, 
ANDREW H AMERSLEY, > Committee, 
HUGH GAINE, 
Jan. 14, 1801. 
The Rev. Cave Jones. 



■}' 



As there is nothing in this letter, which prescribed any 
limits to Mr. Jones's engagement, I presume, without any 
other evidence, it would be taken as a call for life or good 
behaviour. But testimony shall not be wanting on this point ; 
we shall prove by ministers of the church, that from the first 
establishment of the office of assistant ministers, they have 
always been considered as holding their offices for life or 
during good behaviour. But the most satisfactory evidence 
on this point, will be the confession or admission of the ves- 
try itself: they have most unequivocally admitted, that Mr. 
Jones held Ids office upon tho terms for which we contend. 
On the 5th of September, 1811, the vestry adopted the re- 
port of a committee, in relation to Mr. Jones, in which report 
are the following words : 

" Two modes by which this connection may be dissolved, 
" have occurred to the committee. First — From the nature 
* and terms of the engagement between the vestry and the 



" Rev. Mr. Jones, there can be little doubt that the s&me 
" may, for sufficient cause, be dissolved by either party ; it 
< c being presumed, that the canons of the church do not affect 
4S contracts which had been previously made." 

Now is not this an explicit acknowledgement on the part 
of the vestry, that their contract with Mr. Jones was of such 
a nature, that it could not be dissolved at the mere will and 
pleasure of either party ; but on the contrary, that it could 
not be dissolved without sufficient cause ? 

Did any cause exist that would justify the dismission of Mr. 
Jones ? The enquiry has never been made — the vestry have 
most carefully avoided a course which would induce such an en- 
quiry. And their anxious desire to avoid such a course, has 
led to the proceedings which they have instigated. This is 
a secret of these transactions, which the arbitrators must un^ 
derstaud, before they can be acquainted with the merits of 
this case. As Mr. Jones's call was for life, or during good 
behaviour, had the vestry dismissed him, when he should 
have brought a suit against them for his salary, they could 
only have justified themselves by proving his misconduct. 
To avoid which they resort to this canon of the church* 
And while even those who stand as his prosecutors are obli- 
ged to acknowledge that he has faithfully, piously and zeal- 
ously performed his duty, they procure the sentence of an 
ecclesiastical tribunal which disqualifies him to discharge 
the duties of his office. And now if he should sue the ves- 
try on his contract, they would answer his suit by saying, we 
have not dismissed you : we do not hinder you from serving 
us; but your presbyters and bishop have rendered you in* 
capable of performing your part of the contract — Why did not 
not the vestry prefer a course which was so manifestly more 
candid and generous ? Why did they not dismiss him ? And 
then fairly meet the question whether they had sufficient cause 
for doing so. But no ! the bishop and his presbyters would 
save them from all responsibility. And under the forms of 
ecclesiastical law, this unfortunate gentleman and his un- 
offending and helpless family were to be sacrificed, and doom- 
ed to poverty and want, while his persecutors have, with a sort 
of triumph, declared, that they had no accusations to make a- 



57 

gainst him ; and indeed that he never was accused. — It is only 
expedient, they say, that he and his family should suffer for the 
good of the church, while his enemies live in the enjoyment 
of its richest blessings. 

Let me now ask the attention of the arbitrators, while I 
present to them a history of the proceedings, which have ta- 
ken place against Mr. Jones, and examine on what grounds 
and by what authority it is pretended they are justified.-— 
They all rest upon the 32d canon* of the Episcopal Church 
of the United States, which was passed in the year 1808. 

This canon, we contend, does not apply to the case of Mr. 
Jones, for a variety of reasons ; and these 1 shall now sub- 
mit to the consideration of the arbitrators ; first, because it 
was passed after Mr. Jones's call.— -It would seem without any 
further reasoning, to be manifest that a contract, between 
Mr. Jones and the vestry, cannot be affected by any act of 
the church passed subsequently to that contract, much less 
can it be affected by any proceeding, to which the vestry 
were a party in hostility to Mr. Jones. But this point the 
vestry seem also to have settled for us. In their zeal to re- 
solve enough against Mr. Jones, they have resolved something 
in his favour.- — The latter part of the resolution of the 5th of 
September 1811, which I have before read, is as follows : 
" It being presumed, that the canons of the church do not 
affect contracts which had been previously made." Can 
there be a plainer acknowiedgement, that Mr. Jones's contract 
was not to be affected by any canon which was passed sub- 
sequent to his call. And yet in the very next breath, in the 
very same report, they resolve to institute proceedings, which 
are to end in the entire annihilation of his contract, under 
this thirty-second canon which was passed years after Mr- 
Jones's call. Is it not most astonishing, that such incon- 
sistency should display itself on an instrument of this kind, 
and in a controversy of this nature ! 

Again, this canon does not apply to the case of Mr. Jones, 
because it provides that it " shall not he obligatory upon those 
states or dioceses, with whose usages, laws or charters it inter- 

* See Page 21. 

H 



5$ 

jeres" Now we shall shew, that to apply this canon to the 
church in this state, would be interfering with its usages, be- 
cause it has been the immemorial usage to consider every 
clergyman who had a general call as settled for life or during 
good behaviour. To make therefore his contract or his liv- 
ing not dependent on his good "behaviour, but on the will of 
a tribunal which may be convened under this canon, is to 
apply the canon here, where it is inconsistent with our usa- 
ges. As to this usage, we shall bring irrefragable evidence? 
and prove that it has existed since the church has had an ex- 
istence in our country. Before the war, the question was 
agitated and settled conformably to what has ever been the 
general usage. 

Again, the canon 7 as will be seen by a reference to it, does 
not apply in any case to controversies between assistant 
ministers and their vestries : and as Mr. Jones is an assist- 
ant minister, and the controversy is alleged to have existed 
between him and the vestry of Trinity Church,(if there were 
in fact such a controversy) it forms a case to which the 
canon can have no application. To understand this objec- 
tion, the arbitrators are to observe that assistant ministers are 
not mentioned in the former part of the canon. It speaks 
only of controversies " between ministers who now or there- 
after may hold the rectorship of churches or parishes, or the 
vestry or congregations of such churches or parishes, which 
controversies are of such a nature," &c. In the subsequent 
part of the canon, it is declared that it shall apply " to the 
cases of associated rectors and assistant ministers and their 
congregations" only. So that though a controversy between 
a rector and his vestry may be the grounds of a proceeding 
under the canon ; yet a controversy between an assistant 
minister and a vestry can afford no such grounds. For as to 
an assistant minister, the controversy must be with the 
congregation, and not with the vestry. 

And do not let it be supposed, that this was a mere error 
in the drafting of the canon. When we recollect the gravity, 
wisdom and learning of those by whom the affairs of our 
church are managed, we are not lightly to admit a sugges- 
tion that implies any carelessness or want of intention in any 



59 

thing that is done, much less in a solemn act of this nature. Ami 
it is obvious that it is not here to be admitted, because there 
are the most solid reasons for the distinction which the canon 
makes between the two cases. A rector is not only a mem- 
ber of every vestry, but is the head, without which it cannot 
act. If therefore there be any difference or dispute between 
a rector and hJs vestry, it may be very necessary to have an 
appeal to some other independent body. But between a ves- 
try and an assistant minister, there is no connection what- 
ever: all his connections are with the congregation. He is 
their servant : and if they have differences or controversies 
they may proceed under the canon 4 but the vestry may not. 
Is it not reasonable to suppose that the reverend divines, 
who had a voice in the enacting of these canons, had some 
regard to the independence of their brethren, who might 
be placed in the subordinate situations of assistant ministers, 
and did not mean to leave them subject to the caprice of bo- 
dies changeable every year as vestries are, and who by par- 
tiality, pride, prejudice, or the undue influence of an angry 
and resentful enemy, might create controversies, to make 
them the foundations of appeals to the bishop. The canon 
has not put, and did not mean to put, assistant ministers thus 
at the mercy of a vestry. But their connection is only with 
the congregation ; and as they would for ever be in the eyes 
of the congregation and not of the vestry alone, the power 
of complaining is left in the case of assistant ministers with 
the congregation and not with the vestry* 

Now between Mr. Jones and the congregation, there never 
has been a controversy, much less has there been any appeal 
by them to the bishop. How then can this canon have au- 
thorized the proceedings, which have fallen so heavily on Mr. 
Jones and his unfortunate family ? > 

Waiving, however, for the present, the consideration of 
these objections to the applicability of the canon to the case of 
Mr. Jones, let us turn to other passages in the ecclesiastical 
law, which will show most manifestly, that to make it reach 
Ihe case of Mr. Jones, and to make it the instrument of his 
destruction, it has been most miserably distorted. The canon 
could have no application until there was a case of -contro 



60 

Tcrsy between Mr. Jones and the congregation ; or, for the 
sake of argument, let us say until there was a controversy be- 
tween Mr. Jones and the vestry. I have said there never 
was any such controversy: and we shall by and by satisfy 
the arbitrators that there was not. The real controversy, if 
any did exist, was of a much more personal nature. But, to 
pass over this for a moment, the canon further provides, that 
" the controversy must be of such a nature as cannot he settled 
" by the parties themselves" and when it " has proceeded such 
*' lengths > as to preclude all hope of its favourable termination" 
then the canon authorises the bishop and his presbyters to 
interfere, and on certain terms, to dissolve the connection. 
Does it not most manifestly appear, that it was intended, that 
there should be no proceedings under this canon, until the 
parties to a controversy had made some efforts to settle it 
themselves ; and until by such efforts, it had been ascertain- 
ed that there was no room to hope for an amicable termination? 
But what was the conduct of the vestry ? A majority of them 
took offence at Mr. Jones. They resolved that a controver- 
sy existed within the meaning of the canon, without having 
the slightest communication with him ; without letting him 
know that they had a controversy with him ; without asking 
Mm to settle that controversy which they had resolved did 
exist; without enquiring whether there might be hopes of its 
favourable termination. Under some most extraordinary in- 
fluence, as much in violation of their Christian duties as of 
the laws of their church, they at once resort to these cruel 
proceedings against my unfortunate client. If we lay the in- 
junctions of the canon in this respect out of view, let us ask, 
was it not the duty of these gentlemen, not only as men but 
as Christians, as servants in a Christian church, to have en- 
deavoured to be reconciled with their offended or offending 
brother, before they instituted proceedings, which they must 
have foreseen, would, and which they doubtless must have 
intended should, end in his ruin ? 

But it will be said a controversy did exist between Mr. 
Jones and the vestry ; and though it must be acknowledged, 
that no effort was ever made to settle it between the parties ; 
yet it will be contended, that it had proceeded to such lengths 



Gi 

as to preclude all hopes of a favorable termination : and con- 
sequently, Mr. Jones became obnoxious to the provisions of 
the canon. It becomes necessary, therefore, to enquire what 
the controversy was ? And I think there will be no difficulty 
in satisfying the arbitrators, that instead of there having been 
a controversy between Mr. Jones and the vestry or the con- 
gregation ; it was a controversy between Mr. Jones and his 
Rev. colleagues, the Rev. Dr. Hobart and the Rev. Dr. Howe, 
or rather between these gentlemen and most of their clerical 
brethren of this parish. Mr. Jones and his family now suf- 
fer, not because he has had any difference with his vestry or 
congregation, but because he has had the temerity to offend 
these two gentlemen. 

In the year 1789 or 1790, bishop Provoost became the 
bishop of this diocese. In the year 1801, bishop Moore was 
consecrated. In the spring of 1811, although Ave were bless- 
ed with two bishops, it was deemed indispensably necessary 
that we should have a third, Mr. Hobart became the open 
and avowed candidate for that office. I assert without fear 
of contradiction, that Dr. Hobart was the avowed candidate 
for the Episcopacy. Mr. Jones, aware of the intrigues that 
were progressing, and intimately acquainted with the dispo- 
sition and character of Dr. Hobart, did not consider him the 
most proper person for that exalted station. Believing that 
others could be found, equally competent and more meritori- 
ous, he considered it his duty to develope the facts upon 
which he founded his opinion, and accordingly published his 
i: Solemn Appeal," which has been made the foundation of all 
the proceedings against him ; to some extracts from which, I 
now request the attention of the arbitrators. 

" The second occurrence," says Mr. Jones, in his Solemn 
Appeal, " was at the funeral of Mr. Walton. This was, I 
believe, about two years after the former transaction. I had 
been desired by the bishop to visit and supply the churches 
in the county of Orange. I consented, provided my place in 
the city could be supplied. The bishop said it was reasona- 
ble that my duties here should be discharged, when I was 
performing the general duties of the church in another quarter ; 
and remarked that he did not doubt that mv brethren in the 



62 

city would discharge my parochial duties in my absence, se 
that I should not have to perform additional service on my 
return. He said moreover, that for his part, he would take 
his turn to officiate for me ; and doubted not our colleagues 
would do the same, if I should apply to them. Some short 
time after, my wife was quite indisposed ; and it was deemed 
advisable that she should take a little tour up the country. I 
proposed accordingly to accompany her to the springs on the 
first convenient opportunity ; and began to make arrangements 
in my mind for carrying the two objects conjunctly into effect. 
About this time it happened, I do not know exactly by what 
means, except it was by the shutting up of one of the churches, 
that I had two vacant Sundays in succession. These, or 
rather the intermediate time, I thought of devoting to the 
waiting on my wife; and two others, provided the bishop's 
proposition should succeed, to visiting the churches mention- 
ed. At the time above referred to, just as we were taking our 
stations before the corpse, I mentioned these circumstances 
to Mr. Hobavt ; and asked him, if he would supply my place 
one Sunday, as the bishop would the other ? He said, no, he 
would not ; that he had no notion of doing my duty without 
a return ; that he would be willing to do it for any other per- 
son ; but that I was always very exact in requiring an equiva- 
lent for offices rendered. I replied, that the proposition made 
appeared to be strictly just, that while I was doing the duties 
of th$ church elsewhere, I should have my place supplied 
here ; that the proposition was at the suggestion of the bishop, 
and rested with himself to adopt or not He said, I might 
take my own Sundays, without infringing on the privileges of 
my brethren. I gave the reason above referred to, for mak- 
ing a different arrangement. He said, he did not doubt I 
would be very willing to supply other churches, if I could 
get rid of my labours here ; and that any of the clergy would 
be willing to do the same. I then offered to supply his place, 
if he would do what I had proposed. He said, no ; he did 
not wish to leave the city. This was the substance of our 
conversation, the whole of which I do not recollect ; but it 
lasted without intermission from the door of Mr. Walton, in 
the upper end of Pearl- Street, till we arrived at the door of 



Trinity Church ; during which time, I frequently urged that 
the matter rested entirely with himself to adopt or not ; and 
we had therefore better say no more about it. Throughout 
the whole, Mr Hobart, with considerable heat, and with some- 
what of biting sarcasm, plainly arraigned the reasonableness 
of my request, and the purity of my motives ; and I was in- 
voluntarily compelled to plead in my own defence." 

Let me again remind the arbitrators, that this was a publi- 
cation made on the eve of an election, at which Mr. Hobart 
was, as I have said, an avowed candidate for the office of 
bishop ; and if only a very small portion of the facts detailed 
in this work are true, is Mr. Jones reprehensible for disclos- 
ing them to the convention and to the world ? Nay, was it 
not his duty to do so ? Let us remember when this scene 
passed. It was when Dr. Hobart was attending the funeral 
of one of our most venerable and respectable citizens ; when 
he was followed by the weeping relatives and friends of the 
deceased ; at such a time and on such an occasion, he com- 
mences a quarrel with his colleague, as to the share he should 
take in the performance of the sacred duties of his office* 
He continues " his heat and biting sarcasm," till he arrives 
at the door of the church, and is obliged to restrain his anger., 
lo pronounce the solemn words of the burial service. Is it 
wonderful, that Mr. Jones thought such conduct betrayed a 
character unfit for the high and holy office, to which Dr. Ho- 
bart aspired ? Could Mr. Jones, knowing these things, per- 
form his duty to that church, of which he was a member, 
without publishing them to those who were about to elevate 
Dr. Hobart to this high and dignified office ? 

Among other causes of dissention, it appears that a con- 
troversy existed respecting the Rev. Mr. Richard C. Moore, 
Dr. Hobart, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Lyell, believing that one 
course ought to be pursued towards this gentleman, for what 
was deemed by them irregularities ; Mr. Jones and some 
others of the clergy thinking, that a more mild and conciliat- 
ing line of conduct ought to be adopted. Anxious for the 
peace and harmony of the ministry, Mr. Jones wrote the fol- 
lowing letter, dated May 14th, 1810. 



6k 

;; Rev. and Dear Sir, 

" As the subject of an exchange of official duties 
" with the Rev. Dr. Richard C. Moore, has been matter of 
" conversation between us on a former occasion ; I deem it 
" proper, before I carry into effect the line of conduct which I 
" intend to pursue, to apprise you of my intention and my 
" reasons, in order that I may not seem to act, as I certainly 
" do not act, from a spirit of opposition to you. You will 
" therefore receive this communication as a pledge of my dis- 
" position to friendliness. And I have adopted the present 
" mode of conveyance, in order to avoid any irritation of 
" temper, which might possibly arise from a personal inter- 
" view. 

" Towards Dr. Moore, I wish and I intend only to pursue 
a the same line of conduct, which I should feel it my duty 
" to pursue towards any other clergyman in the same situ- 
" ation, and under similar circumstances. To such I do real- 
" ly feel myself bound, without regard to personal attachment 
" or partiality, to treat them with friendliness, to regard them 
" as brethren, and as such, to render them all the good offices 
" in my power, particularly by an undiscriminating inter- 
" change of official duties, as long as they do not glaringly 
" violate the rules and orders of the church. In matters 
" which are not provided for, by these standing rules and or- 
" ders, I do not feel a right to set myself up as a judge. 

" By this principle, my conduct towards Dr. Moore has 
» hitherto been regulated. It has always appeared to me, that 
" whatever tendency to irregularity he might be supposed to 
" possess, would be most likely to be corrected by a mild and 
" friendly deportment towards him : — that this would most 
" readily seize his affections ; and by means of gentle persua- 
" sives, would dispose him to adopt such a line of conduct, as 
" might seem correct to us. And you will pardon me, if I 
" offer it as my deliberate opinion, that, had this mode been 
" adopted by all his brethren, on his removal to the city, it 
r would have been a very easy matter, to have prevented en- 
N tirely his connexion with the private societies. To this 
( connexion, I have uniformly been opposed; not because I 



65 

f* thought any rule of the church was violated by holding 
" societies, as such, alone; but, because, from principle I 
" disapprove of them. And, although the foundation on 
" which, as I understood it, this matter was placed by the 
" bishop, greatly weakened my efforts ; yet I never ceased 
" to urge a discontinuance. And this I was still in hopes to 
" effect, by a friendly deportment. It was not till some 
" short time ago, that I understood that the service of the 
" church was not used at these meetings; and learnt also 
* c from the bishop himself, that he had pointedly expressed his 
" disapprobation of the manner in which they were conduct- 
" ed. . From that time, I discontinued an interchange of 
* official duties with Dr. Moore, and assigned to him my 
" reasons. 

" Since this period, Dr. Moore has pledged himself to me, 
" that he has at his last meeting, used nothing but the service 
" of the church, that it is his firm determination to use none other 
** for the time to come, and that he has notified his people of 
" such determination. This, in my opinion, alters the ground 
" entirely. Whatever may be my own private opinion with 
" regard to the expediency of society meetings — yet, as long 
" as there is no rule of the church violated thereby, every in- 
" dependent rector must be left to his own discretion, as to 
■* what is expedient in his own parish. And I certainly have 
" no right to take into my hands the authority of dictating* 
" This, I have it from the bishop, is his opinion in the case : 
" and I shall govern myself accordingly. It is my intention 
*' therefore, to interchange occasionally with Dr. Moore, as 
" with the rest of my brethren, as long as he shall continue 
" thus to use none but the service of the church. 

" This intention, will, I trust, be considered apart from all 
" personal regards. Whatever private misunderstanding may 
" be between yourself and Dr. Moore, it is not for me to in- 
" terfere. My wish is, as it is certainly my duty, to act be- 
" tween you as friends — at least to me ; and it would be my 
'" happiness if I could make you such to one another. 

" And now permit me, Rev. Sir, to expostulate with you 
" on this case, and to beg of you to consider, whether it would 
" not be for the advantage of the churcb ; that these unhappy 



66 

?/ diiferenees should be brought to a close. It must certainly 
•* weaken the influence of our ministry, to have it known that 
'these animosities exist among the clergy ; and it must also 
" undoubtedly be a great cause of rejoicing to those who are 
" the enemies, and who seek the downfal of the church. 
" Surely, when so many are combined against us, we ought 
" ourselves to be united. But independently on all pruden- 
" tial considerations, it will admit of little dispute, that we are 
" loudly called to this union by our duty, both as Christians 
" and as clergymen. 

44 It really appears to me, that this reconciliation can easi- 
44 ly be brought to bear, without any unbecoming submissions 
" on either side. It may now be done without giving publi- 
" city to any of the previous measures; as what is now writ- 
" ten has been shown to no one, and mentioned to no one, 
" except to one confidential friend ; and is not intended to 
44 be shown, unless imperious circumstances shall require. 
44 This I mean, however, only as a guide to my own con- 
" duct. 

" This letter you will be so good as to communicate to 
44 Mr. How, to whom jointly with yourself, it is intended 
44 to be addressed. It is sent to you in the spirit of friend- 
" ship, in order to avoid any interruption of that harmony 
" which ought to subsist. At the same time, I beg it may 
44 be distinctly understood, that I deprecate no consequences* 
-* 4 but that of the commitment of the peace of the church. 
" Your brother in Christ, 

« CAVE JONES. 
Rev. Dr. Robart. 

New-York, May 14th, 1810." 

" After the sending of this letter, Dr. Hobart and I met seve- 
4J ral times in private circles ; on which occasions he was parti- 
44 cularly courteous; but I received no answer, nor any com- 
44 munication on the subject on which we had conferred. I had 
44 learnt however that he intended to write a letter in answer ; 
44 and that it would be of a conciliatory nature, abandoning the 
44 ground which he had taken with regard to having no inter- 
40 course, and leaving me to act as my judgment or inclination 



m 

rt might direct. But on Friday the 15th of June, after prayem, 
" Dr. Hobart asked me to remain in the vestry room of Trinity 
" Church, and there introduced the subject and dilated upon it 
" verbally. He criticised every part of my letter, on which he 
" had evidently prepared himself; without giving me the same 
" opportunity ; and when I endeavoured to explain, he would 
" twist my words, and endeavour to fasten upon me unsound- 
" ness of principle and inconsistency of conduct. This con- 
" versation led to the very consequences which I endeavoured 
" to avoid, and which 1 avowed it to be my object to avoid, in. 
" communicating by letter. It was lengthy and embraced a 
" vast variety of topics, so that it is almost impossible to re- 
M member the particulars : and it really would appear to me 
" that every thing was resorted to, which might have a tenden- 
" cy to wound my feelings and irritate my temper. So firm was 
" the impression on my mind at the time, and such was the 
" tartness and irritating nature of his remarks, that I more 
" than once was induced io ask him, whether he was seeking 
" the occasion of a quarrel ? This to be sure he disavowed; 
" and while he was making the most severe remarks on every 
" part of my character and conduct, he would say, " I mean 
" not now to wound your feelings.',' — He took a review of the 
" whole period which has passed since my coming to the city, 
" (although we had agreed at Mr. Harris's, on the affair of Mr. 
" Gillet, to bury every thing in oblivion prior to that event) 
M and contrasted his friendly deportment, as he mentioned, to- 
bi wards me, to what he charged me with, my unfriendly and 
" insidious deportment towards him. He brought into view a 
cc variety of little trifling particulars with regard to the question 
" of precedency; and others which had never been, mentioned 
" between us ; and asserted that I had assumed an importance 
" which did not belong to me, and had infringed upon his right. 
" This referred as he explained it, on my enquiry to the ques- 
" tion of precedence at the communion and at funerals; which, 
" as I then reminded him, had always been arranged between 
" us by agreement, or by courtesy. But he asserted that a I~ 
" though he had the politeness to yield to me, yet I ought to 
<; have had the good sense to have refused. He charged me 
k with being, if not the principal author, at least a very instru- 



68 

<4 mental cause of the misunderstanding between him and Dr* 

" Moore, and asserted that 1 had no pretensions to the offering 

" of myself as a mediator between them. He alleged that on 

" a variety of occasions I had acted as his secret enemy. And 

" after taking a review of the whole ground, as well as at sev- 

il eral intervals, while I endeavoured to explain and defend, he 

" would tauntingly say, " and yet after all this you hold your- 

* c self up as perfectly immaculate, a paragon of goodness, alto- 

" gether qualified to reconcile differences !" — He urged me for 

sf the reasons for certain parts of my conduct. If I gave them 

« { in general ; he urged me to specify particular facts. If 

" I waved it, he threatened to bind me to proof. Till at length 

" I told him that I wished to avoid any further altercation ; 

" and that I really was obliged to be on my guard ; because I 

" saw that he was disposed to catch at my words, and to twist 

54 them to my disadvantage. Ee talked several times of being 

" able to fasten certain charges on me by. proof; and said that 

** matters were drawing to a crisis, when I would have to an- 

" swer for my conduct. During the whole of this time, I dare 

e * appeal to himself that I acted entirely on the defensive, 

ei and that I suffered none of those passions to arise, which 

" might naturally be expected to be excited by the occasion : 

<c while on the contrary, he throughout, and particularly to- 

" wards the conclusion, was warm, impetuous and irritating. 

" June 16th, 1810. 

" Additional remarks, as they occurred in the ensuing week. 
" The subjects introduced were so various, and introduced 
" so rapidly, that it is impossible for me to remember the con- 
" nexion, or indeed scarcely more than the general tenor of 
" the remarks made. I had frequently to request Dr. Hobart 
" to stop and let me correct what he had asserted ; but this 
" was soon impossible : and I perceived that I had on- 
** ly to hear what he had to say ; except when he called upon 
" me for explanations of my past conduct, which we had a-^ 
ci greed by his own proposal to bury in oblivion. I therefore 
41 made up my mind to oppose nothing ; but merely, when it 
" was impossible to parry it, to soften my own conduct, or 
<4 give reasons for it. Indeed upon reflection, I am astonished, 
*' and almost angry with myself, that I could remain, and re- 



69 

%i eeive such insulting language and conduct. Once, towards 
** the close, when every thing seemed to have been said, that 
tc might reasonably have been expected, 1 did take my hat 
" and open the door, with intention to leave him ; but Dr. 
" Hobart pressed upon me closely, seemingly with intention 
" to prevent me ; and upbraided me with unmanliness or 
" want of generosity (and as it now strikes me, of cowardice) 
" for wishing as he said, to avoid giving an explanation of 
" my conduct. At this time it was, that in a threatening 
" manner, and (if I do not greatly mistake) with a brandish 
" of the arm, he said, " I will put you to the proof." When 
" at the same time I had asserted nothing, but a mere mat- 
" ter of opinion as a reason for my own conduct, after being 
" repeatedly pressed, having endeavoured to parry it ; and 
" when he was urging me for specific charges, evidently with 
" intention to form a ground of complaint. At a very early 
" part of the conversation, I found that he was disposed to 
" take advantage of every thing which I should say. I therefore 
" endeavoured to be as guarded as possible. For this pur- 
" pose I determined to make use of the mildest terms in my 
" power, and those which would be the least liable to objection. 
" These he would still play upon; and from them endeavour 
" to involve me in absurdity. And if in any subsequent part, 
" I made use of different terms, he charged me with prevari- 
" eating ; and he would repeat over the terms, and add, 
" For I know not how to understand you." In fact I had all 
" along endeavoured to avoid an investigation of past circum- 
" stances ; because I knew that that was not the fit opportu- 
" nity for such enquiry, and would only add fuel to the flame ; 
" and because it was very apparent that Dr. Hobart pressed it 
u only to draw from me something which he could turn to his 
" own advantage. This was evident from the use which he 
" made of a prior conversation with regard to Mr. Feltus." 

And here I ask the indulgence of the arbitrators, while I 
explain what were the irregularities complained of. The 
Reverend Dr. Moore formerly held a living in the country. 
While there, he was in the practice of meeting his parishion- 
ers at private houses and in their families, and praying with 
them. It was said, that on these occasions he did not adh-ere 



io the forms of prayer prescribed by the rubric of the Epise 6* 
pal Church. When he came to this city, he continued this 
custom : he visited his parishioners in their dwellings ; and 
in their little social circles, he prayed with them. This is 
the misdemeanor which has offended some of Dr. Moore's 
brethren of this city, and was the cause of the conduct to- 
wards him, which gave rise to the letter from Mr. Jones 
which has just been read. I think this must be heard with 
astonishment ; but I do assure the arbitrators, it is a fact that 
no other crime ever has been or can be alleged against Dr< 
Moore, but that he visited the members of his congregation 
at their houses and prayed with them without book. And 
yet, if I may judge from my observation, the canons cannot 
prohibit extemporary prayer at all times; for although I 
know, that by the laws of the church, the common prayer 
book must be used before and after sermon ; yet there is hard- 
ly a clergyman of our church, that I have not heard pray 
most eloquently, and most devoutly too, in the body of his 
discourse. So that if Dr. Moore offended, in this respect, it 
was not in using extemporary prayer, but in not using it as- 
Ms brethren did, in the midst of their sermons. These fa- 
miliar visitations of Dr. Moore, and this extemporary praying, 
appeared crimes of such enormity in the eyes of Dr. Hobart 
and Dr. How, that they not only refused to admit Dr. Moore 
into their pulpits, because he had been guilty of them, but 
they required that Mr. Jones and the rest of their brethren 
should also exclude him. Nay, so far did they carry their 
abhorrence of these sins of Dr. Moore, that they insisted 
that all the clergymen who did not prohibit Dr. Moore from 
preaching in their pulpit, should themselves be excluded from 
the pulpits of Trinity Church ; and it is a fact that I am sure 
cannot be heard but with increased astonishment, that Dr. 
Harris, one of the most venerable and respectable pastors in 
the diocese, has been under an interdiction on this account. 
The efforts of Mr. Jones to produce a reconciliation among 
his brethren, and to bury in oblivion these, as yet secret 
jarrings and bickerings, so shockingly disgraceful to the cleri- 
cal character, were considered by Dr. Hobart not only offi- 
cious, but highly offensive-* 



7! 

But Dr. Hobart had other grievances to complain of. It 
seems Mr. Jones had presumed to take precedence at the 
communion and at funerals. How shall I explain this subject 
of complaint ? Will it be believed that a minister of the gos- 
pel, whose duty it is to practise as well as preach humility, 
was offended with his brother, because that brother had at 
the altar partaken first of the bread and wine, and because 
he had walked on the right hand when they were together 
marching in a funeral procession before a corpse. And these 
fancied wrongs made the subject of the most angry and bitter 
invective, immediately after prayers, and within the very 
walls of the sanctuary. 

Mr. Ogden. We do not consider the pamphlets of Mr. 
Jones as evidence, nor do we admit the truth of the state- 
ments contained in them. On the contrary, we deny that, 
they are true. 

Mr. C olden. I do not read these passages as evidence of 
the facts they state. The truth or falsehood of these charges 
you have never given us an opportunity of controverting. 
But you say this " Solemn Appeal" forms the controversy 
which authorised the proceedings against Mr. Jones, and I 
am selecting some passages for the consideration of the arbi- 
trators, that they may judge of the nature of the controversy. 
And whether, supposing this book contains the truth, Mr. 
Jones, under the circumstances which existed, was or was 
not justifiable in making the publication. 

While I am anxious that the arbitrators should be acquaint- 
ed with the contents of this book, which forms so important 
a feature in the case under their consideration, I am fearful 
that if I were to read as much as I had designed to do, I 
should occupy too much of their time, and exhaust too much 
of the little strength I have. I shall therefore content myself 
with asking the attention of the arbitrators to but a feAv other 
passages, trusting that before they make their decision they 
will not only read this book, but all that has been published 
on this unpleasant subject. 

Preliminarily to reading another passage from the " Solemn 
Appeal," I beg leave to state, that previously to the late 
election of Dr. Hobart, the minds of the Episcopalians of 



this diocese had long been fixed on the oldest minister be- 
longing to Trinity Church, as a successor to bishop Moore, 
when the dispensations of Providence should make it neces- 
sary to select one. This was the Rev. Dr. Beach, a man 
universally beloved and respected. For more than thirty 
years he had been a faithful labourer; his piety, his zeal, his 
mild, amiable and simple manners, commanded the venera- 
tion and engaged the affections of all who knew him. When 
it was first proposed to him to take upon himself the duties 
of the high and holy office to which Dr. Hobart has been 
elected, he with characteristic humility declined it. But 
when he found that the vacant mitre had roused an ambition to 
which the peace of the church was likely to be sacrificed, he 
yielded to the solicitations of the true friends of religion, and 
consented to give her the support of his venerable character, by 
accepting the Episcopacy. The passage which I am now about 
to read is Mr. Jones's representation of what took place when 
this acquiescence of Dr. Beach was known. 

" When these particulars were understood abroad, means 
" were immediately taken to endeavour to prevent the effects 
" which would naturally ensue. Every engine was set to work 
" to get Dr. Beach again to change his ground, and positively 
" to declare that he would not accept of the appointment. Ac- 
" quaintance after acquaintance, numbers of persons in sue* 
" cession, called on Dr. Beach, and there is reason to believe, 
" were sent, in order to prevail on him not to suffer his name to 
" be made use of, and indeed, positively to decline being con- 
" sidered as a person to whom the offer of the office should be 
*' made. Letters were written from different clergymen with 
" whom Dr. Hobart and Mr. How had influence, and whom it 
" is known Mr. How had been to visit a short time before ; the 
" purport of which letters was to reconcile Dr. Beach to the 
" opposition which would be made to him ; and to convince him 
" of the propriety of appointing a younger man. — In addition 
" to all this, Mr. How waited on Dr. Beach, and in the course 
" of conversation, told him, that he is too old for the appoint- 
" ment, and that if he should suffer his name to be made use 
*' of, although some of the clergy might vote for him, it would 
" yet be out of pity and not out of respect. — To bring matters 



73 

f; together, which were probably divided in point of time : Dr. 
" Beach further received from these gentlemen assurances in a 
" peremptory manner, that if he did not positively decline all 
44 idea of the appointment, they would use all their influence 
44 against him, and oppose his election to the very last step. 

44 There is another piece of conduct which ought to be taken 
a in connexion with this, and which had a very considerable 
44 effect on Dr. Beach's mind. Dr. Hobart had not been unin- 
44 formed of the part which I should act. And, in order to 
44 counteract it, he was engaged in procuring certificates con- 
44 cerning his conduct towards me. Among others, he applied 
44 to Dr. Beach, to certify that he had never heard Dr. Hobart 
44 speak otherwise than respectfully of me. Dr. Beach observed, 
44 that he could certainly testify that : but then on the other 
44 hand he should be in duty bound to testify, that he had never 
44 heard me speak otherwise than respectfully of Dr. Hobart. 
44 He was also, he said, acquainted with a circumstance, by 
44 which I had unequivocally evidenced my friendship for Dr. 
44 Hobart ; while, on my being nominated to a particular official 
* 4 duty, Dr.Hobart evidenced his displeasure at the appointment. 
44 For these reasons Dr. Beach said, he thought it best that he 
44 should give no certificate, as it could answer no beneficial 
44 purpose whatever. Dr. Hobart flew into a passion, and said, 
44 If you will not do me justice, I will do justice to myself ; 
44 and I will publish to the world what you have said about Mi\ 
u Jones ; and I will publish moreover, that you will say one 
44 thing to-day, and, another thing to-morrow ; and I will prove 
44 it, sir; I will prove it." Taken altogether, Dr. Beach has 
44 said, from the manner, as well as from the matter, he never 
44 has been so insulted in his life." 

I shall forbear all comments on the representation of 
scenes like these. Certainly it would be a most painful task 
to make them, were they necessary. 

The next passage that I shall read will give the history of 
transactions not less extraordinary. It will be seen that some 
who are now persecuting Mr. Jones, because he has dared to 
say that they were unworthy the high places which they 
challenged,could without remorse and without any foundation,, 
make a charge against one of their own brethren which was 

K 



calculated to sink him into the veriest depths of infamy. 
The appendix to Mr. Jones's pamphlet contains a variety 
of certificates relative to a charge made by Dr. Hobart against 
the Reverend Mr. Feltus, and among these is one from Mr. 
Warner, and another from the Reverend Mr. Ireland, which 
I will now read. 

All whom it may concern are hereby certified, That about 
the period of Rev. Mr. Feltus's call to Brooklyn, certain re- 
ports, highly prejudicial to the reputation of said Mr. Feltus 
were in circulation throughout that village. Anxious to as- 
certain the real character of the man who was to be my suc- 
cessor and nearest neighbour, I called on Rev. Mr. Hobart, 
with whom those reports were said to have originated, for 
the express purpose of obtaining information. Mr. H. with- 
out hesitation assured me, that Mr. F. was a disorderly, fac- 
tious, dangerous man ; regardless of all Episcopal authority r 
and calculated to do a world of mischief in the church. On 
my asking what he had done to authorize such an assurance, 
he told me that he had it in his power to prove Mr. F. guilty 
of having forged the testimonials which he had brought from 
Swedesborough. I naturally remarked that this was a charge 
of a most serious nature, and presumed that it must be under- 
stood with some qualifications : and I proceeded to state a 
case, which Mr. H. might conceive to fall under the descrip- 
tion of forgery, but which in a legal point of view might fall 
short of it. His reply was to this effect :— I perfectly under- 
stand the import of the term employed by me ; and do posi- 
tively assert, not only that Mr. F» wrote the testimonials 
which he has produced, but also that he himself signed the 
names attached to them. I next enquired if the bishop had 
been made acquainted with this black transaction f and was; 
answered — that certainly he was, and was taking steps to 
prevent the settlement of such c-ttle in his (the bishop's) 
diocese. 

As I, at that time, supposed Mr. H. to be incapable of 
uttering a wilful falsehood, I not only yielded implicit cre- 
dence to his assertions, but immediately on my return to 
Brooklyn, communicated them (as I conceived it my duty to 
do) to certain influential gentlemen there* A member of the 



restry, and one to whom I imparted the particulars above 
related, informed me that they had already heard of the 
charge ; and had hoped as well as myself, that it would have 
proved to be groundless. 

I have only to add, that from the unreserved manner in 
which Mr« H. made the foregoing communication to me, I 
inferred that he was desirous of giving it all necessary pub- 
licity ; and I acted accordingly* 

Should it be necessary, I am willing and ready to make 
oath that the present statement is, as to substance, correct 
and true. Witness my hand, this 5th April, 1811. 

JNO. IRELAND. 
The Rev. Dr. Hobart having drawn up a sheet of char- 
ges, impeaching, as I thought, the moral character of the 
Rev. Mr. Feltus, and meeting him at messrs. Swords's book 
store, I conversed with him on the subject, and invited a 
trial of the charges preferred against him, assured him I 
should prove them to be totally false. 

Shortly after the above conversation, Mr. Feltus moved 
to Brooklyn, bringing with him ample Testimonials from the 
congregations of Swedesborough, and also from bishop White 
of Philadelphia, which Dr. Hobart had seen and read, they 
being left for inspection with bishop Moore : and meeting Dr. 
Hobart in Wall-street, I asked him if his opinion was not al- 
tered now with respect to Mr. Feltus. He made me this reply- 
No sir, I think worse of him now than before. I immediate- 
ly asked, is there any new charge against him ? to which he 
replied, ' £ Yes, I charge him with forging his Testimonials 
from the church of Swedesborough." Forgery sir, I replied, 
is a high crime, I cannot believe it. He answered, " They 
are his own hand writing : I have compared them with his 
letters and am satisfied." I told him I should write to Swedes- 
borough on the subject, and if it was really so, he weuld for- 
feit my friendship for ever. A letter was accordingly wrote 
to the church at Swedesborough : the answer, with a copy 
of their minutes from the Journal are now to be seen, prov 
ing the charge to be a false and malicious slander. 

GEORGE WARNER 
The above will be attested ) 

to. if required. 3 



76 

And let me observe, that though we may be told that Mr. 
Ireland has fallen under the displeasure of the church, I hope 
that displeasure is not sufficient entirely to destroy his credit. 
Happily the times are gone past, when the thunders of the 
church could as effectually blast a man's character as the 
lightning of heaven could beat down his frame. The page 
of history has recorded for our veneration those who have 
died in former days under the sentence of ecclesiastical tribu- 
nals. And when I know that the Rev. gentleman, whose 
cause I now advocate, is also an offender in the eyes of those 
who hold the authority of Trinity Church, I cannot admit 
that her censures deserve much respect. 

I will only add, in relation to this affair, that there will be 
found in the " Solemn Appeal," certificates and affidavits, which 
I shall not now stop to read, which repel this foul slander 
against Mr. Feltus, in the most ample and honorable manner. 
And here let me ask, without reference to the vocation of 
the parties connected with this transaction, if such a charge 
had been made by a layman against his neighbour, and it had 
been proved to be a malicious slander — *what should we have 
said ? Should we have said to the injured individual, the good 
of the church requires that you should not expose your wrongs. 
Your calumniator is about to be put over your head, do not 
let it be known how far he has injured you, lest you may 
thereby prevent his attaining an olevation that may enable 
him to set his foot on your neck. 

But if it was so great a erime in Mr. Jones to publish this 
book, why was it not equally criminal in Mr. Feltus to pub- 
lish the appendix ? The charges of Mr. Feltus are not less 
momentous than those made by Mr. Jones. Why is Mr. Jones 
hunted down with so much inveterate perseverance ? Why 
do the clergy of Trinity Church unite in the pursuit with such 
cordiality, while Mr. Feltus is passed unheeded ? — I will not 
attempt to account for such inconsistency. But I shall leave 
the arbitrators to draw their own conclusions, after I have 
stated, that though Mr. Feltus was settled in this diocese, he 
was not a member of Trinity Church, and therefore did not 
stand between the rich rectorship of that corporation and a 
younger clergyman. 



77 

In justification, however, of Mr. Jones's publication, I shall 
beg leave to refer to an authority the respectability of which, 
no doubt, will be admitted by our adversaries. They may 
appeal, in the course of the argument they will address to 
your honors, to the authority of dead bishops. I beg leave 
to quote on this point the sentiments of a living one. The 
first paragraph in bishop Hobart's statement, is in the follow- 
ing words : 

" To defend the church, when her authority, her order, 
" and her peace are assailed, is the duty of those who 
" are entrusted with the management of her concerns. And 
" it is a duty which should ever be discharged with prompti- 
" tude, resolution, and zeal. The existing state of the 
" church imposes upon me the necessity of defending her, 
" and renders highly expedient the present address to you." 

Mr. Jones did think that the order and peace of the church 
were assailed, by the avowed intention of seating a divine of 
Dr. Hobart's temper and disposition in the episcopal chair. 
And if there be any truth in the representations which Mr. 
Jones has made of Dr. Hobart's conduct towards his brethren, 
towards Dr. Beach, Dr. Harris and Mr. Feltus, will any 
man say Mr. Jones thought incorrectly ? 

But Dr. Hobart, who is so alive to publications which may 
affect himself, has felt no remorse when it has suited him to 
attack the character of others. And he has done this when 
neither exacted for his own defence, nor excused by the 
slightest provocation. As an evidence of this I will read 
some very extraordinary passages from Dr. Hobart's letter to 
the vestry. 

" Mr. Jones considers the phrase, applied by myself and 
* ; others, " a man in whom no confidence is to be placed" as the 
" cant phrase by which every one is cried down who is not 
" found " yielding and submissive."* This phrase, so ob- 
" noxious in me, is daily used with impunity in the inter- 
" course of the world. No secular concern could be trans- 
M acted with safety or success, if an analysis of the charac- 

* Appeal p. 1. 



" ters of individuals, and free conversation concerning them 
f among those engaged in the management of this concern, 
" were not permitted. There is no man who does not find 
" it absolutely necessary to act upon this principle in the af- 
" fairs of the world. And surely in ecclesiastical matters, 
" where those qualities that are calculated to excite distrust 
" of their possessor, are even more dangerous and injurious 
" than in temporal interests, the exercise of this princple is 
" more justifiable. Care indeed must be taken that it be ex- 
" ercised only for good reasons, and only to a necessary ex- 
" tent. That this rule was observed by me in my conduct 
" to the Rev. Mr* Feltus, I am compelled in self-defence to 
<c show. 

" This gentleman, though according to his own declaration 
" originally a Baptist, officiated for a long time among the 
u Methodists, and was considered one of their number. His 
" denial that he ever was a Methodist, though he officiated 
<c among them, and is said by many respectable ministers and 
*■' others of that communion, to have belonged to their socie- 
u ty, was certainly not calculated to inspire me with conn™ 
" dence in him. Nor was this likely to be excited by my 
" knowledge of the fact, that while a preacher among the 
* c Methodists, he was distinguished for his violent, and some- 
-' times abusive language concerning the Episcopal Church. 
4i The conviction, that he was not " to be depended on," if I 
"*' may be allowed the phrase, was further confirmed by the 
%i opinions of many respectable persons of the Methodist com- 
M munion, who had full opportunity of knowing his character. 
■" They spoke of him as '* a man in whom no confidence was 
" to be placed," pompous and violent often, but hollow and 
*' insincere in his professions- I was satisfied that this repre- 
" sentation was not owing to resentment at his having taken 
"** orders in the church ; because the same persons spoke in 
" high terms of others who had received Episcopal ordina- 
*' tion. 

" These traits of character did not change With a change 
" of communion. Even while a candidate for orders in the 
" church, I am credibly informed, he was considered by at 
'' least some among whom he officiated in the capacity of lay 



-79 

^reader, as ready to attach himself to any communion tha? 
" might suit his purpose ; and was in the practice of mutilat- 
" ing the liturgy, and introducing extempore prayer. After 
" his ordination, the same practice continued. His conduct 
s - was thus at variance with the high tone with respect to 
" church principles, and to the order and the worship of the 
4C church, which on some occasions, and with some persons 
u he assumed ; while with others he could accommodate him- 
M self to a much lower grade of church principle. Though 
" sometimes the loud advocate of order and panegyrist of the 
M liturgy; in his own congregation in New-Jersey, he origin- 
** ated private meetings not sanctioned by this order, and 
' where this liturgy was laid aside. Ami for some time after 
" his settlement at Brooklyn, he could omit parts of the ser- 
" vice required to be used, as suited his purpose. These 
" were not solitary acts into which the most correct might be 
" occasionally betrayed, or for which the force of some impe- 
•* rious circumstances could be urged as an apology; but the} 7 
" were frequently practised by him for years ; even after the 
>c highest principles as a Churchman were on certain occa- 
' sions avowed by him." 

Let us assemble the epithets which Doctor Hobart here ap- 
plies to one of his brethren — to a clergyman who has been 
many years settled in this state; who has one of the largest 
and most respectable congregations in the diocese ; who is 
beloved, esteemed and respected by his parishioners, and who 
in point of talents will not suffer by a comparison with his 
calumniator. He is, according to Dr. Hobart, " a man in 
whom no confidence can be placed, pompous and violent 
often, but hollow and insincere in his professions" — " ready 
to attach himself to any communion that might suit his pur- 
pose." And add to all this, he too, as well as Dr. Moore ? 
had been guilty of the abominable crime of originating pri- 
vate meetings of his parishioners, and using extemporary 
prayer ! 

But it is not so much for presenting this hideous picture to 
the view of the arbitrators that I read this passage, as to direct 
their attention to an expression which it contains of Dr. Ho- 
hart's sentiments on that part of the case now under cosside- 



80 

ration. " No secular concern," says Dr. Hobart, " could be 
transacted, if an " analysis of the characters of individuals, 
and free conversation concerning them among those engaged 
in the management of this concern were not permitted." — 
" And surely," he adds, " in ecclesiastical matters,where those 
qualities that are calculated to excite distrust of their possessor 
are even more dangerous and injurious than in temporal inte- 
rests, the exercise of this principle is more justifiable." If 
this reasoning will excuse Dr. Hobart's attack on Mr. Feltus, 
why will it not be an excuse for Mr. Jones's publication ? To 
calumniate the character of an humble rector, it seems, is the 
exercise of a justifiable principle. But to analyse the charac- 
ter of an individual who aspires to a mitre, and who is the 
favourite of the vestry of Trinity Church, is a crime that 
can only be expiated by the utter ruin of him who is guilty 
of it. 

But we may be told that Dr. Hobart only asserts the ne- 
cessity of tolerating " analysis of the characters of indi- 
viduals in free conversation" and therefore, what he has 
said will not sanction a publication in relation to private cha- 
racter. But let me ask, shall a man be justified in talking 
down his brother in private circles ; shall he be permitted se- 
cretly to attack his fame ; shall he make his reputation the 
tattle of a tea-table, and thus undermine and destroy him, 
without affording an opportunity for vindication, shall this be 
excused as a necessary " analysis of private character ?" and 
yet a publication which makes its charges manfully, boldly, 
and openly ; which invites the accused to justify himself, be 
condemned ! If the charges in Mr. Jones's book be untrue, 
nothing can justify its publication ; but if they are otherwise, 
and that they are so he insists, he was under a most sacred 
obligation to publish them at the time he did. Had he satis- 
fied himself with reporting these things of Dr. Hobart in the 
circles of his acquaintance, without affording Dr. Hobart an 
opportunity for vindication or denial, I think he ought not to 
have been forgiven. 

I shall trouble the arbitrators with but one more quotation 
from this letter of Dr. Hobart's to the vestry. It is to shew 
how far Dr. Hobart felt himself at liberty to attack the 



3d 

character of his brethren not merely" by analysisln^free con- 
versations," but by publications of such a nature as was best 
calculated to do them the most irreparable mischief. The 
document I am now about to read we shall prove was written 
by Dr. Hobart. It is true, it is signed by other clergymen as 
well as by himself. But when, by our testimony, we shall 
have explained by what means the signatures of Dr. Harris 
and others were obtained, I believe the opposite counsel will 
be very willing to forget that their names appear. 

" THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP MOORE. 

New-York, June 12, 1807. 
" Right Rev. Sir, 

" The undersigned presbyters of your diocese beg leave 
u respectfully to call your attention to the following circum- 
" stances ; with which they presume, however, you are alrea* 
" dy acquainted. 

" At the election, a few years ago, of a rector of Christ 
" Church, in this city, the Rev. Mr. Feltus was held up for 
" that office, and was supported by considerable influence. As 
" the election eventuated in the choice of another person, it 
" was to be presumed, that, from considerations of delicacy, 
" Mr. F. would be remarkably circumspect in his future deport- 
" ment towards that congregation, lest the influence which he 
" possessed in it might tend to excite dissatisfaction and division. 
'* At a visit, however, to this city, a short period after the 
K election, his conduct was not only a violation of one of the 
*' canons of the church, but directly tended to excite invidious 
" comparisons between himself and the rector of Christ Church, 
" to the disadvantage of the latter. At his recent visit he 
" made the most solemn protestations to you, Right Rev. Sir ? 
" of his sorrow for any irregularity of which he might have been 
P guilty , and of his disposition and determination, in every 
" way in his power, to promote the comfort and influence of 
" the rector ofChrisl Church. Towards this gentleman his con- 
" duct was apparently frank and cordial ; and with him, as 
* c well as with you, Sir, the day before his departure, he freely 
" conversed on the subject of accepting a call which he had 
" received from the church at Brooklyn, On.the morning of 



82 

; - his departure, several persons of the congregation of Christ 
" Church waited on their rector, to inform him of their anx~ 
" iety and determination to obtain, if possible, Mr. Feltus for 
" their minister ; and that for this purpose, he (their rector) 
" must immediately consent to admit Mr. Feltus as a co-rector. 
w On their rector's stating to them, that Mr. Feltus was pre- 
" paring to accept the call from Brooklyn, they replied that 
" Mr. Feltus would not accept the office of an assistant minister, 
" but that he had assured them, that, on condition of his be- 
" coming co-rector, he would give the preference to Christ 
ct Church. These gentlemen assuredly would not have made 
" these declarations, if they had not indirectly, at least, 
" from Mr. Feltus, or from some one of his confidential 
w friends ascertained his sentiments and wishes. 

" On the above facts we deem it our duty to observe — that 
" it appears to us little consistent with that christian humility 
" which should ever be the attendant of extraordinary piety 
" and of extraordinary zeal for the glory of God and the 
" good of souls, in Mr. Feltus to disdain the office of assist- 
" ant minister, which has subsisted from time immemorial in 
" Episcopal Churches, and has, at different times, and in 
" different places, been cheerfully filled by persons of at 
" least equal pretensions with Mr. Feltus. The conduct of 
" this gentleman we deem further exceptionable, as it is 
" calculated to bring odium upon the office of assistant minis- 
" ter ; to excite dissatisfaction and desire of change where 
" that office subsists; and to introduce into this diocese aninno- 
" vation in the constitution of parochial churches, of which 
if there is only one solitary instance (introduced under some 
" very peculiar circumstances) in the United States, and 
" which we believe is unnecessary, injudicious, and tending 
" to discord and disunion. 

" We think also, that it was the duty of Mr. Feltus, in his 
"frank conversations with you, Right Rev. Sir, and with 
" the rector of Christ Church, at least to have consulted you 
" on the propriety and expediency of such a novel arrange- 
" ment,and the rector of Christ Church whether it would accord 
" with his ideas and feelings. But the total silence of 
" Mr. Feltus with you, Sir, and with the rector of Christ 



83 

-'*' Church on this point; his holding out the idea of accepting 
" the call from Brooklyn; and his repeatedly and solemnly 
" disclaiming all wish or design to interfere with the rector 
" of Christ Church, while a plan was maturing, if not by 
" his direct influence, at least with his connivance, to intn> 
" duce him as a co-rector in that church, display, we deeply 
" regret to say, a meanness and duplicity, connected with a 
" cunning, and an inordinate love of power and popularity, 
" which render it impossible for us to extend in future our 
flS confidence to this gentleman. We hesitate not to declare., 
4C that we shall greatly deplore any event which should con- 
" nect him with us as a presbyter of this diocese. We make 
u this declaration with the less hesitation, as we understand 
" Mr. Feltus is at present usefully and eligibly situated in the 
" state of Jersey. And we, therefore, cannot think any change 
" desirable on his part, which will place him in a situation 
" where he will not enjoy that confidence and esteem of his 
" brethren which may be of importance to his happiness, if 
" not to his respectability and usefulness. 

" We make no apology to you, Right Rev. Sir, for this 
" address. We know you deem it the duty of your presby- 
" ters, on all occasions of importance, frankly to furnish you 
" with their sentiments. And the conduct which we have 
*' stated is of too great importance to the interests, the peace, 
" and harmony of this diocese, and too important, therefore, 
" in its personal consequences to us, for us to have remained 
" silent. 

" We make this communication to you, in the wish that 
" a copy of it may be forwarded to Mr. Feltus, and to any 
¥ other persons to whom you may judge it expedient so to 
u do. 

" We are, Right Rev. Sir, 

« y erv respectfully and affectionately yours, 

« ABRAHAM BEACH. 

" JOHN BOWDEN. 

« JOHN HENRY HOBART, 

« WILLIAM HARRIS. 

" GEORGE STREBECK. 

« EDMUND D. BARRY." 



84 

Now what was the crime of Mr. Feltus, which subjected 
him to this bitter invective ? Why is he charged with " mean- 
ness and duplicity, and an inordinate love of power and po- 
pularity?" And why is the bishop requested to publish these 
charges, by communicating them to any persons to whom he 
might judge it expedient? The whole head and front of the 
offending is " that Mr. Feltas had disdained the office of as- 
sistant minister, which had been filled by persons of at least 
equal pretensions with Mr. Feltus;" or in other words, which 
was then filled by bishop Hobart himself. I will make no 
other comment on this, than to apply to it a passage from Dr. 
Hobart's own eloquent pen : " Vanity," says he in his letter 
to the vestry, " is a foible when indulged in the circles of 
" private friendship, but when it intrudes into the sanctuary ; 
ft when it raises its pretensions in the presence of God, when 
" it pollutes our sacred things, to palliate it with this appella- 
" tion, would be charity greatly misapplied." Most truly 
it would be so ! When vanity intrudes into the sanctuary 
and pollutes our sacred things, it ought to be called by its 
right name — crime! 

There is another evidence afforded by Dr. Hobart, of the 
liberties he thought himself authorized to take in the " analy- 
a sis of the characters of individuals in free conversation." 
In Mr. Jones's book, he accuses Dr. Hobart of having circu- 
lated pitiful tales against him. Dr. Hobart does not deny the 
charge, but extenuates it in a singular way. The passage 
containing the charge, as made by Mr. Jones, and Dr. Ho- 
bart's answer to it, will both be found in Dr. Hobart's 
Et Statement," from which I shall now read : — 

" At tea-table parties, he has introduced the edifying topics 
*' of little, mean, pitiful tales about family concerns : which, 
" in the manner represented, I here, in the face of the world, 
" declare to be false, and am able to prove to be false ; and 
Ci which, under the real attending circumstances, are such 
" as no honest and honourable man need blush to have made 
*< known."* 

* Mr, Jones's pamphlet, p. 12. 



35 

u Now, I am able to prove, by the testimony of two re- 
Xi spectable persons, that these " little, mean, pitiful tales" 
" originated near two years ago with Dr. Harris. They were 
" stated by him to these persons as proofs of the " little, mean, 
" and pitiful" disposition of the individual for whom he ap- 
" pears now prepared to sacrifice the authority and the peace 
" of the church. They were never circulated by me ; and 
w only alluded to in a very confined assembly of persons, most 
" of whom knew them previously, as evidences of the very 
" extraordinary change which had taken place in Dr. Harris's 
" sentiments of Mr. Jones." 

Dr. Hobart does not deny that he did relate pitiful tales of 
Mr. Jones, but he says he did not circulate them. He only 
alluded to them, in a confined circle, to most of whom they 
were known before. Whether telling a tale in the presence 
of people, to some of whom it was not known before, be or 
be not circulating it, the arbitrators must determine. But I 
think they will be shocked, when they understand that one 
of the pitiful tales here alluded to, was a story which Dr. Ho- 
bart told at a tea-table, as coming from Dr. Harris, of Mr. 
Jones's having borrowed half a load of wood from Dr. Harris 
in the w T inter when wood was dear, and returned it in the 
spring when fuel was cheap. Let it be remarked too, that 
this pitiful tale was told by Dr. Hobart after the affairs be- 
tween him and Mr. Jones had arrived at their crisis. Then 
some one of the confined circle, in which Dr. Hobart was 
expatiating on the character of Mr. Jones, had the humanity, 
so far to interpose in behalf of Mr. Jones, as to say that he 
was esteemed by Dr. Harris. Upon which Dr. Hobart said, 
then Dr. Harris now thinks differently of Mr. Jones from 
what he formerly did. And as an evidence of Dr. Harris's 
former opinion, bishop Hobart related, for the edification of 
his hearers, and as an example of that Christian charity 
which it was his office to inculcate, the story of the half load 
of wood ! It will appear that the whole foundation for the 
tale was a joke of Dr. Harris, which passed when bishop Ho- 
bart, Mr. Jones, and filers, were present at the house of Dr, 
Harris. 



86 

But though the publication of a book has been made se 
grievous a crime in Mr. Jones, it would seem that he has on* 
ly anticipated Dr. Hobart, who must have had an intention 
of publishing. With what other view could Dr. Hobart have 
employed himself in collecting certificates relative to the con- 
troversy between him and Mr. Jones, long before Mr. Jones's 
book made its appearance ? Though some of the certificates 
published in Dr. Hobart's letter to the vestry are without date, 
the arbitrators will find that the certificates of bishop Moore 
and Mr. Barry are dated on the first of April, Mr. Lyell's on 
the eighth, and Dr. Bowden's on the tenth of the same month ; 
whereas Mr. Jones's " Solemn Appeal" is dated on the first 
of the following month of May, and was not published until 
some time in that month. And yet the publication of the 
" Solemn Appeal" is represented as the origin of all the un- 
happy differences in the church. And Dr. Hobart is repre- 
sented as an innocent, passive, unsuspecting victim, who first 
learns that he is attacked from this production of the press, 
and who had never thought of putting himself on the defen- 
sive until he was assailed by Mr. Jones's book. For what 
purpose then were these certificates collected at so early a 
day ? Were they to rest in the port folio of Dr. Hobart ? Were 
they designed to be incorporated in a publication which Dr. 
Hobart had in contemplation, as they are now introduced in 
his letter to the vestry ? Or, were they intended to be pro- 
duced, like the story of the wood, as corroborative documents, 
when at some other tea-table Dr. Hobart, surrounded by the 
venerable matrons of his parish, might think it necessary 
" to analyse the character of Mr. Jones in free conversa- 
tion." 

But if the mere publication of a book, without reference to 
the occasion of the publication or the matter that is published ; 
if it affords no excuse for Mr. Jones to say, that what he pub- 
lished was true ; that he had no other mode of defending him- 
self against the slanders and calumnies with which his ene- 
mies were continually assailing him; if it be no excuse for 
him to allege, that the manner in w uch the election of a 
bishop was precipitated, allowed him no opportunity to warn 
the members of the church against the mischiefs that would 






87 

result from elevating an unfit character to that high office, 
flow will Dr. Hobart justify his publications ? He printed 
an edition of his letter to the vestry, and sent several hun- 
dred copies of it around to the members of the congregation, 
with the word " Private" written in his own hand upon the 
covers. And shortly after, whether by authority of Dr. Ho- 
bart or not we do not know, a large second edition was pub- 
lished in the city, which was universally disseminated. Is 
it possible that this little contrivance of writing " private" 
on the covers of the books which Dr. Hobart published, will 
be resorted to, to distinguish his case from that of Mr. Jones ? 
To me it seems there is a distinction, and it is the same 
which every generous mind will acknowledge exists between 
a bold, open, manly attack, and that which seeks to destroy 
by hidden means. It is not however his letter to the vestry 
only that Dr. Hobart has to justify. If Mr. Jones is to be 
punished merely on account of publication, Dr. Hobart must 
show on what principle he is to be excused for the publica- 
tion of his " Statement ;" and for the publication of the in- 
numerable little two-penny anonymous pamphlets, on the 
subject of this controversy, of which I have now a volume 
before me, and of which it will not be denied that Dr. Ho- 
bart and Mr. How are the authors ? If the laws of the chureh 
forbid a clergyman to publish under any circumstances; and 
if Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones have equally offended against 
those laws, how does it happen that the one stands before 
you now degraded from his profession, at an advanced age, 
and with a wife and children turned upon the world without 
a means of support, while the other is rewarded with the 
highest honours the church can bestow ; and the boundless 
treasures of the corporation, under whose banners he carries 
on this contest, afford him a revenue which no other priest 
in our country has or ever had ? 

For the sake of making some observations, which perhaps 
would have been more in order in a prior part of my argu- 
ment, I beg leave, before I enter on a new topic, again to 
advert to part of the thirty-second canon, which I believe 
I have already slightly noticed. A controversy to afford 
grounds for proceeding under the canon must be " of such a 



88 

Hature as cannot be settled by the parties themselves." It 
appears to me that no controversy can be said to be " of such 
a nature as cannot be settled by the parties," until some ex- 
periment or some effort to settle it has been made. 

I think it impossible to read this canon without feeling a con- 
viction that it was in the minds of those who made it, that 
in case any controversy should arise, its provisions would not 
be resorted to, until it should have been ascertained that efforts 
for an amicable adjustment were in vain. Supposing this to 
be the true construction of the canon, let us examine the 
conduct of the vestry and see what efforts they made to set- 
tle the controversy, which they say existed between them and 
Mr. Jones, previously to their resorting to it. The " Solemn Ap- 
peal," was published early in May 1811; and on the thir- 
teenth of the same month the vestry passed their first resolu- 
tion on this subject. This resolution, or the report connect- 
ed with it, is nothing more than a censure clothed in such 
language as we might expect frojn the pens of those whose 
names it bears. A copy of this resolution, pursuant to a 
direction which it contains, was served on Mr. Jones. But 
let it be remarked that there is nothing in the report or reso- 
lution which could convey to the mind of Mr. Jones the 
slightest intimation that the vestry expected any thing from 
him ; much less could he understand from the report or reso- 
lution what the vestry expected or required. If the vestry 
desired that Mr. Jones's book should be suppressed: If they 
desired that he should make an apology to them, or that he 
should humble himself before their favourite, Dr. Hobart, 
would it not have been well to have expressed their desire 
in this resolution ? I must beg the arbitrators to turn to the 
report, which will be found among the documents which are 
before them, and to see whether I have misrepresented its 
purport. 

But although no such expectation was expressed, Mr. Jones 
understood a few days after this resolstion was passed, that 
the vestry expected he would suppress his book. In cod se- 
quence of which Mr. Jones called in all the copies that had 
not been sold. They were put away in the store of the prin- 
ter, where they lay till after Mr. Jones was released from all 



89 

obligations of obedience to the church. From this time, till 
the receipt of bishop Hobart's letter by the vestry, no pro- 
ceeding whatever was had. There was no kind of communi- 
cation between the vestry and Mr. Jones. If a controversy 
then existed between them, not the slightest effort was made 
to compromise it. And it is most confidently believed, and 
we think we shall be able to prove, that from this time until 
the publication of Dr. Hobart's letter, there was not a single 
member of the vestry who did not think the affair, so far as 
they were to have any thing to do with it, was finally settled. 
But the design of suppressing Mr. Jones's book having suc- 
ceeded, Dr. Hobart took his leisure to prepare the publica- 
tion which was to rekindle the flames of discord. To- 
wards the latter end of August Dr. Hobart and Mr. How 
published their public private letter, and sent it to the vestry. 
A few days after, that is to say, on the fifth of September, the 
committee on the state of the church, which, as we under- 
stand, was not appointed with a view to this particular ob- 
ject; but as a standing committee of the vestry, made a report, 
recommending to the vestry proceedings against Mr. Jones 
under the thirty-second canon. 

Now if it be the meaning of the canon that parties in con- 
troversy cannot avail themselves of it, until there have been 
vain efforts made for an amicable reconciliation, where do 
we find, in the history of these proceedings of the vestry, 
the slightest traces of such efforts on their part? They pro= 
cure the suppression of Mr. Jones's book. While it is sup- 
pressed Dr. Hobart publishes, and the vestry still continuing 
to oblige Mr. Jones to keep in his book, while they see edi- 
tion upon edition of Dr. Hobart's letter published, advertised 
and universally distributed, proceed to prosecute Mr. Jones 
on account of the book they had obliged him to suppress.. 
I do confess, that all the respect I have for the great names 
by which these proceedings appear to be sanctioned, cannot 
reconcile them to my ideas of justice and impartiality. 

There is another circumstance connected with this part of 
the transaction which well deserves to be noticed. Mr. 
Jones, suspecting that the letter of Dr. Hobart inight ? as it 

M 




. 



30 

was intended, exeite the vestry to take some measures a~- 
gainst him, wrote to the vestry the letter which appears in 
the documents before you, dated the 4th of September. In 
this letter Mr. Jones informs the vestry that he waited " for 
the intimation of their opinion as to the line which it would 
be proper for him to pursue." " That he was ready to enter 
on any terms of amicable adjustment, consistent with the 
character of gentlemen and of christians." One would 
think that after the receipt of this letter the vestry could not 
have proceeded on the ground that such a controversy exist- 
ed between them and Mr. Jones as could not be settled; 
and that it had proceeded such lengths as to preclude all 
hopes of a favourable termination. But the vestry make n© 
other use of this letter than to notice on their minutes the 
receipt of it, as an introduction to their resolution passed on 
the very day they received it. And by which they resolved 
that Mr. Jones should be pursued to the utmost extremity, 
There is a passage in bishop Hobart's letter, which so mani- 
festly displays the design and expectation with which it was 
written, that I cannot but beg leave to direct the attention of 
the arbitrators to it. The right reverend bishop, after having 
told us that he had matured this production of his in the short 
space of five or .six weeks, though it appears, as I have before 
observed, that some of the certificates which it contains are 
dated as early as the April preceding ; he then adds, " I men- 
" tion these circumstances to preclude the suspicion that its 
" appearance, at this moment, is the result of some unworthy 
u design. You must permit me earnestly and respectfully to 
>£ solicit, that no act of your's, at your next meeting, may 
:; furnish a pretext for imputing this design to me." Cer- 
tainly it was judicious in the bishop to caution the vestry 
against the appearance of precipitancy, which their acting 
immediately on the receipt of his letter might afford. But 
at the meeting after the next, the right reverend father de- 
livers my unfortunate client over to the influence of his letter, 
and the mercy of the vestry. But the vestry were too zealous 
to gratify, what they knew were the desires of the bishop, 
even to observe the prudence he had recommended ; for at 
the very next meeting after the publication of his letter, as if 



% 

they had considered it an invocation of their vengeance, and 
as if Mr. Jones's letter, praying to be reconciled, had excited 
their anger or resentment, they pass their resolution of the 
fifth of September, delivering Mr. Jones over to an ecclesi- 
astical tribunal. To show the temper and disposition which 
Dr. Hobart, and Mr. How have manifested, from the beginning 
to the end of these proceedings, we shall prove, that from 
the moment of Mr. Jones's publication, these reverend gen- 
tlemen have been loud in their declarations that Mr. Jones 
should be driven from his home and compelled to leave the 
diocese. Notwithstanding Dr. Hobart's humane petition 
that the vestry would do nothing against Mr. Jones at theli- 
tis meeting, we shall prove that he and Mr. How have 
gone to different members of the vestry, and in the most 
earnest manner, sometimes with warmth and even anger, 
pressed the obligations which the vestry were under to pur- 
sue such measures, as would separate Mr. Jones from the 
church in this state. 

I am happy now to be able to proeeed to the consideration 
of another braneh of this subject. If there was no contro- 
versy, or if it was not suoh a controversy as it had been as- 
certained by experiment could not be settled by the parties., 
there was no foundation for proceedings under the canon, 
and all that have taken place must be illegal and void. I pre- 
sume it will not be contended that the resolution of the vestry 
could make a controversy, if none existed independently of 
the resolution. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that 
such a controversy as, in the contemplation of the canon did 
exist, yet we insist that the whole proceedings are irregular 
and uncanonical, because the tribunal which has assumed to 
act was not constituted according to the caeon. 

By the canon, application is to be made to the bishop of 
the diocese, and he, with his presbyters, are thereupon to 
proceed according to the provisions of the canon. And that 
the authority is given to the diocesan and to no other, the 
vestry have admitted by their resolution of the 5th of Sep- 
tember, by which they resolve, that application shall be 
made to the bishop of the diocese ; and that the right rever- 
end? the bishop of the diocese, be requested to take into con* 



92 

sideration the subject matter of their resolution, and with the 
assistance of his presbyters to proceed therein according to 
the directions of the canon. 

This important question then occurs, who was the bishop 
of the diocese? Dr." Moore has assumed the power; we say 
it belonged to bishop Provoost. 

Dr. Provoost was duly elected bishop of this state in 
1789 : he was consecrated in England. In the same year he 
was invested as diocesan of the church in this state, and 
continued to discharge the duties of the office until the year 
1801, when oppressed by ill health and severe family afflic- 
tions, he formed a determination to resign. In a special con- 
vention held in this city, on the first of September 1801, he 
made a verbal declaration of his intention, and immediately 
left the convention. The general convention being in ses- 
sion a few days after at Trenton, bishop Provoost addressed 
to bishop White, as president of the house of bishops, a let- 
ter dated the 7th of September, which appears on the docu- 
ments before you, and by which Dr, Provoost requests the 
president to inform the house of bishops that he had resigned 
at the late meeting of our church convention his jurisdiction 
as bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state of 
New- York. From this time till the present moment bishop 
Provoost has lived in the most perfect retirement. He was 
never made acquainted with the proceedings of either the 
state or general convention, consequent to his proffered re- 
signation ; and he did fully believe that his resignation had 
been accepted, till the agitation of the church, occasioned 
by the matters now under consideration, brought to his 
knowledge the proceedings of the two conventions. Bishop 
Provoost, therefore, never thought of exercising any episco- 
pal function, after he had tendered his resignation, till he at- 
tempted to interpose his authority, to arrest, what he thought, 
the violent and illegal proceeding against Mr. Jones. 

But let us examine the proceeding of the general conven- 
tion upon the receipt of bishop Provoost's letter. Their 
minutes are in the documents which are before the arbitra- 
tors. On the 9th of September the bishops, in answer to an 
application on the subject from the clerical and Jay deputies*, 



95 

return to them a resolution, in which the bishops say that the 
contemplated resignation of bishop Provoost is inconsistent 
with ecclesiastical order, with the practice of episcopal 
churches in every age, and with the tenor of the office of 
consecration. That the bishops " judge it to be inconsistent 
" with the sacred trust committed to them, to recognize 
*' bishop Provoost's act as an effectual resignation of his epis- 
** copal jurisdiction." 

" Nevertheless," say the bishops, " being sensible of the 
" present exigencies of the church of New-York, and approv- 
4t ing of t-«3ir making provision for the actual discharge of 
st the duties of the episcopacy, the bishops of this house are 
" ready to consecrate to the office of bishop any person who 
<c may be presented to them with the requisite testimonials 
" from the general and state conventions." - 

" But this house must be understood to be explicit in 
" their declaration, that they shall consider such a person as 
;C assistant or coadjutor bishop during bishop Provoost's life, 
" although competent in point of character to all the episco- 
" pal duties, the extent in which the same shall be discharg- 
" ed by him, to be dependent on such regulations as expedi- 
" ency may dictate to the church in New-York, grounded on 
u the indisposition of bishop Provoost, and with his concur- 
<: rence." 

One would think, that after this solemn and explicit reso- 
lution of the bishops, there could be no doubt of their view 
of the subject, neither as to the power of bishop Provoost to 
resign, nor as to the character in which they meant to con- 
secrate bishop Moore. He was to be assistant or coadjutor 
bishop only. Who then was to be the diocesan ? To put out 
of question who the bishops considered as such, they resolve 
that Dr. Moore can only discharge the duties of the episco- 
pacy with the concurrence of bishop Provoost. 

But it has been said that this resolution of the house of 
bishops only applies to the spiritual jurisdiction of bishop 
Provoost, and that though this could not be resigned, yet 
there was nothing to prevent the resignation of his temporal 
jurisdiction of the diocese. To this it is to be answered, 
that whatever it was that bishop Provoost offered to resign. 



it was that that the bishops refused to accept. Bishop Pre- 
voost's letter tenders a resignation of his " jurisdiction as 
" bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the state of 
" New- York." 

The bishops resolve, M that it is inconsistent with the 
" sacred trust committed to them, to recognize the bishop's 
** act as an effectual resignation of his episcopal jurisdiction " 
But if there were any grounds for this distinction, the conse- 
quence would be, that bishop Provoostj would remain the 
spiritual diocesan, and bishop Moore might be the assistant 
or coadjutor temporal diocesan. Let me ask, however, what 
are the temporalities of a bishop in this country ? In England 
they are very obvious and substantial ; they consist of large 
estates and revenues. But in this state I know of no other 
temporalities belonging to a bishop than his lawn sleeves. He 
has not even a mitre, unless it be the block over Trinity 
Church which has been newly decorated. 

Shall we be told that the bishops had no authority to de- 
cide this question of resignation ? I hope not. I have al- 
%vays believed that these reverend fathers of the church, who 
derive their authority from no mortal source, had power, in- 
finitely paramount to the decision of a question like this. I 
know that it is by their authority that the articles of my faith 
are established, and it is in deference to their high spiritual 
stations that I have learned to admit an alteration in the very 
creed of my religion. I hope the divines who are connected 
with this controversy will not instruct us that we may ques- 
tion the authority of the bishops on a subordinate point like 
this. If they should do so, there may be those, in whose 
minds doubts may arise whether it be not possible that these 
spiritual heads of our church may not also be mistaken as to 
matters of much greater moment. 

This resolution, however, of the house of bishops, is not 
the act of that body alone. It has the concurrence of the 
house of clerical and lay deputies ; and so is to be consider- 
ed as the act of the supreme legislature, if I may so express 
myself, of the church. It is recorded in the minutes ef the 
proceedings of the house of clerical and lay deputies, that 
upon receiving the communication relative to bishop Pr<v 



95 

roosf d resignation from the house of bishops, and the terms 
on which they would consecrate Dr. Moore, the lower house 
proceeded to sign the requisite testimonials in favour of Dr. 
Moore ; and ordered them to be presented to the house of 
bishops. On the next day, September the 10th, the minutes 
state that a message was received from the house of bishops, 
informing the clerical and lay deputies that the bishops had 
approved the testimonials in favour of Dr. Moore, and that 
they had appointed the next day for his consecration ; and 
thereupon it was resolved, that the house of bishops should 
be informed that the house of clerical and lay deputies would 
attend the consecration of Dr. Moore at the time appointed* 
On the 11th of September, being the day appointed by the 
bishops for the consecration, it appears by the minutes of the 
clerical and lay deputies, that " the house adjourned to at- 
" tend divine service at St. Michael's church, Trenton, on 
4( occasion of the consecration of the Rev. Dr. Moore, bishop 
- elect of the church in New- York." 

Now putting all these things together, can there be any 
doubt but that the house of clerical and lay deputies concur 
red with the house of bishops, in their resolutions respecting 
the resignation of bishop Provoost, and the consecration of 
bishop Moore? 

I have read, as the words of a saint, of saint Ignatius, f 
think, or of one who assumed his signature, that " when a 
" man gets up and walks forward, all controversy about the 
" existence of motion must be at an end." It must be ad- 
mitted, that there is great wisdom in the saying, and we only 
desire that it may be applied to the proceedings of the house 
of clerical and lay deputies ; and then, we think, that all 
controversy, as to their concurrence in the acts of the bishops, 
must be at an end. 

If it should be urged, that neither the bishops or the house 
of clerical and lay deputies, had authority to reject the 
resignation of bishop Provoost ; and that all power, in this 
respect, rests with the convention of the diocese, two points 
are then to be considered. First, whether the state conven- 
tion can accept the resignation of a bishop ? And, secondly, 
supposing they have the power, whether they did accept the 



96 

resignation of bishop Provoost ? Upon the first point, tfeat 
is to say, as to the power of the state convention to accept 
the resignation, I shall say but very little, that being a part 
of the case which I shall leave to the gentleman who has 
the humanity to be my associate on this occasion ; and who 
has had opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of ecclesias- 
tical law, to which I have not the slightest pretensions. I 
presume it will be admitted, that every resignation must be 
to a superior ; and unless it can be shown, that the state con- 
vention is the superior of its bishop, it will follow, that it can- 
not accept his resignation. It is not to be supposed that, be- 
cause the state convention elects its diocesan, he may, there- 
fore resign to them. In England the dean and chapter 
elect ; and yet the resignation must be to the superior, who 
is the metropolitan. But as I have said, I shall leave this 
part of the case to my associate ; and proceed to enquire 
whether the state convention did or did not accept bishop 
Provoost's resignation 

That bishop Provoost meant to resign all his power, whe- 
ther spiritual or temporal ; and that he for a great length of 
time, thought he had effectually resigned, there can be no 
doubt. But it must be granted, I think, that to make an 
effectual resignation there must be two parties ; and the con- 
currence or acts of two parties ; — the one resigning, and the 
other accepting. The minutes of the state convention will 
show, that the last has, in this case been wanting; and 
that the resignation of bishop Provoost never was accepted. 

As I have mentioned, bishop Provoost appeared in his 
place at the state convention, on the third of September, 
1801. As soon as it was opened he addressed the conten- 
tion, and,as it is entered on the minutes, " resigned his episco- 
pal jurisdiction of this diocese." Bishop Provoost then left 
the convention. A president, pro tempore, was chosen ; 
and a committee were appointed to consider and report what 
measures were necessary to be pursued in the, then, situa- 
tion of the church. This concluded the proceedings of the 
first day of the session of the convention. And, certainly, 
there is nothing appearing on the minutes of this day's pro- 
ceedings which indicates an acceptance of the proffered re- 



97 

signation. The next day the committee reported several 
resolutions, which are as follows: " The Right Reverend 
" Samuel Provoost having declared that he resigned his juris- 
" diction as bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
" this state ,• and having expressed his affectionate wishes 
" for the prosperity of the church in general, and the individ- 
" ual members of the convention. 

" Resolved 1st. That the convention return their thanks 
" to the bishop for his kind wishes, and whilst they regret 
" that he should have judged himself under the necessity 
" of quitting so suddenly the exercise of the episcopal office ; 
" and those solemn and important duties which are connected 
" with it, they beg leave to assure him of their sincere and 
a fervent prayers that Divine Providence may so guide and 
" govern him in all his ways, as will most conduce both to 
" his temporal and eternal felicity. 

" 2d. That a copy of the foregoing resolution should be 
" transmitted to bishop Provoost, and 

" 3dly. That it should be recommended to the standing 
" committee, to call a special convention to meet in the city 
" of New-York in the month of November, then next, for 
" the purpose of choosing a suitable person to be consecrated 
" as bishop, to have the charge of the Protestant Episcopal 
" Church in the state of New-York" 

The minutes then state, " that the preamble and the first 
" and second resolutions of the report, were adopted by the 
" convention. The last resolution was rejected." 

I beg the attention of the arbitrators to some observations 
on these minutes, which are so important to the question 
now immediately under consideration. First, it is remark- 
able that not one word is said of resignation in any part of 
the report. The committee do not regret that bishop Pro- 
voost should have resigned, but that he should have judged 
himself under the necessity of quitting so suddenly the exer- 
cise of his office, and the discharge of its duties. Certainly 
it is one thing to resign an office, and another to cease to 
perform its duties. 

It is impossible to read these minutes, without perceiving 
tliat the committee so far from proposing to accept bishop Pro* 



roost's resignation, meant to consider him as holding the 
episcopate, and to cast a censure upon him for declining 
to do its duties. It is a fact, that will be proved beyond con- 
troversy, that it was a matter of debate among the members 
of the convention, whether a bishop could or could not 
resign. That a great majority of them thought that he could 
not ; and, therefore, the third resolution, which proposed to 
elect a person to have charge of the church in the state, was 
rejected. But afterwards a resolution was proposed, that the 
convention should proceed to the election of a person, not 
to have charge of the church, but for consecration as bishop 
of the Protestajit Episcopal Church in this state, and the reso- 
lution was adopted. 

It appears on the minutes, however, that afterwards it was 
resolved, on motion of Dr. Hobart, that the convention could 
not act on a memorial which had been presented to them from 
Christ Church, while the church was destitute of a bishop. 
And this, it has been said, is evidence that the convention 
had accepted the resignation of bishop Provoost. Now no- 
thing can be more true, than that the church was destitute of 
a bishop ; because bishop Provoost had left the convention 
and refused to act, under the idea that he had made an effec- 
tual resignation. And the same resolution might with equal 
truth and propriety, have been passed if bishop Provoost had 
absented himself from the convention, and declined discharg- 
ing the episcopal duties, on account of sickness or for any 
other cause. But it is extraordinary, that notwithstanding 
this resolution of Dr. Hobart's, that the convention could 
not act in the absence of bishop Provoost ; they immediately 
proceed to transact their business, as if no such resolution 
had passed. They audit and pass their treasurer's accounts. 
They pass a resolution to instruct their delegates to vote a- 
gainst a proposed alteration in the general constitution. 
They instruct their delegates to vote for the adoption of the 
articles of religion of the church of England. They elect 
their delegates to the general convention; and choose their 
members of the standing committee. They pass resolutions 
respecting the qualifications requisite for a seat in the con- 
vention, and they proceed " to the choice of a person to be 



99 

* ; recommended for consecration as Jjisiiop of the Protestant 
*' Episcopal Church in this state." 

Now it seems to me, that none of these acts are less impor- 
tant than it would have been to have decided on a memorial 
from Christ Church, relative to the situation of their church. 
And it follows, either, that, notwithstanding the resolution 
proposed by Dr. Hobart, the convention afterwards discov- 
ered that the church was not destitute of a bishop; or if it was 
so, and it be true that the convention could not act without a 
bishop, then all the subsequent proceedings of the conven- 
tion, including the election of bishop Moore, are illegal and 
void j and of course bishop Moore cannot be the diocesan. 

Chief Justice Kent. If the convention did accept the 
resignation of bishop Provoost, do you admit the election 
of Dr. Moore to have been regular? 

Golden. Certainly not; because, then, it must be de- 
cided, whether the state convention had power to accept. 

Emmet. We contend that the state convention has noth- 
ing to do with the making or unmaking a bishop. They have 
no other power than to elect a proper person to be recom- 
mended to the bishops, who are to consecrate or not as they 
please. The convention in this respect, stands exactly in 
the place of the dean and chapter in England. 

C olden. I have concluded the observations I had to offer 
on the question of diocesan. I will only add, that we admit 
that Dr. Moore is a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal church, 
and that as such, he is, to use the language of the house of 
bishops, competent to all the episcopal duties. But we con- 
tend, that he is no more than what he was consecrated to 
be, that is, an assistant or coadjutor to bishop Provoost, 
who remains the diocesan. But the vestry chose to consider 
bishop Moore as holding that office ; he assumed the charac- 
ter, and acted in the case of Mr. Jones as such. I shall now 
bring to the view of the arbitrators the proceedings of bishop 
Moore, and the tribunal which he assembled, and examine 
their legality and validity. 

Immediately after the resolutions of the vestry were pass- 
ed, they were communicated to bishop Moore. And two days 
afterwards, that is, on the seventh of September, a copy -of 



100 

them was sent, by bishop Moore, to Mr. Jones. Upon the 
receipt of this copy, Mr. Jones presented to bishop Moore a 
remonstrance against bishop Moore's proceeding under the 
canon. This remonstrance, instead of exercising his own 
judgment in respect to it, bishop Moore sends to the vestry 
for their advice; and they having requested him to proceed, 
notwithstanding the remonstrance, he determines to do so. 
The evidence of this extraordinary communication, between 
a judge and party, is recorded in the documents before you. 
It is even made a recital in the very instrument which is in- 
tended to seal Mr. Jones's fate. The right reverend bishop, 
and the reverend doctors and divines who have sanctioned 
this measure, could riot have thought that there was any thing 
wrong in a proceeding which they have so openly avowed ; 
and it only serves as one evidence, among all the others, of 
the ideas of impartiality and justice which have governed 
through the whole course of these proceedings. Bishop 
Moore, in obedience to the request of Mr. Jones's prosecutors, 
determines to proceed. Accordingly, on the 15th of October, 
he sent Mr. Jones notice that he should meet, with his pres- 
byters, on the fifth of November following, to act on Mr. 
Jones's case, agreeably to the requisitions of the thirty -second 
canon. Upon the receipt of this notice, Mr. Jones presented 
to bishop Moore, a more formal and extended remonstrance; 
in which he protested against bishop Moore's proceedings, on 
the five following grounds : Because, bishop Moore was not 
the diocesan. Because, no controversy existed between him 
and the congregation. Because, if such had existed, no 
•effort had been made, on the part of the vestry to compro- 
mise it, and therefore, it could not be said to be of such a 
nature as could not be settled by the parties. Because, the ex- 
ception in the canon, as to those states to whose usages it 
was opposed, prevented its application in this case ; and, be- 
cause, the canon being passed subsequent to Mr. Jones's call, 
he could not be affected by it. 

Whether this remonstrance was also sent to the vestry, for 
their advice and directions upon it, we do not know ; but Mr. 
Jones having understood, that bishop Moore persisted in his 
determination to take coguizance of the c^se, Mr. Jones ad- 






1 101 

dressed a letter to bishop Provoost, inclosing to him a copy 
of the resolutions of the vestry, informing bishop Provoost 
that he looked to him as his diocesan, and that he was ready 
to submit to his authority as such. To this letter bishop 
Provoost returned an answer, saying, that as Mr. Jones's 
letter had given him the first information of the proceedings 
of the vestry, he considered that any interference of his would 
be premature. This letter, from bishop Provoost, was made 
the grounds of a third protest, which Mr. Jones presented to 
bishop Moore. On the fifth of November, however, bishop 
Moore and some of his presbyters met at the place designat- 
ed by the notice Mr. Jones had received. On Mr. Jone3 
presenting himself, he found that all the presbyters of the 
diocese were not present ; and that a great majority of the 
presbyters who were assembled, had taken a decided part 
against him in the very matters on which they were to set 
as judges. That many of them had expressed their opinions 
on his case ; and had even gone so far as to assemble and 
give an exparte judgment against him. Mr. Jones also found, 
that the vestry had sent two of their members, gentlemen of 
the highest standing in the profession of the law, to appear 
as prosecutors before this conclave. Mr. Jones presented a 
protest against the proceedings of the tribunal, embracing all 
the points which he had before submitted to bishop Moore. 
He also, verbally, protested against the legality of the tri- 
bunal, on the ground of the absence of some of the presby- 
ters. He objected to the competency of many of the assem- 
bled presbyters to set as judges on his case, on account of 
the part they had taken in previous transactions; and also 
on account of the pre-judgment which they had given. He 
then left the tribunal. And this, notwithstanding it is certifi- 
ed in the solemn document which purports to be Mr. Jones's 
judgment, " that Mr. Jones appeared, and was fully heard 
" in relation to the application of the vestry and case of con- 
" troversy," is all the hearing that ever Mr. Jones had. 
Nay, it will appear, that not even the members of the tri- 
bunal, who were his friends, and who wished to be heard in 
relation to the case of controversy, were suffered to deliver 
their sentiments : but were silenced by an uproar and cla~ 



102 

mour that would not be very creditable to a temporal court 
however it might be in an ecclesiastical tribunal. 

Having presented to the arbitrators this view of the pro- 
ceedings against Mr. Jones, and of the tribunal which was as- 
sembled to judge of his case, let me press upon their considera- 
tion some extraordinary facts in relation to one and the other. 
It must be remembered that Dr. Moore, from the beginning of 
this business, has been, an'l yet is, rector of Trinity Church. 
He is the head of the corporation, without whom no act can 
be legal. At the same time, he is a bishop of the protestant 
episcopal church, and claims to be diocesan. Then the 
rector bishop has a controversy with one of the ministers of 
the church, and applies to the bishop rector to decide. The 
bishop rector receives a protest against his proceedings, which 
he sends to the rector bishop for his directions ; the rector 
bishop advises him to proceed. The bishop rector deter- 
mines to proceed, and actually sits as the head of a tribunal 
to judge of a complaint which comes from a body, of which 
he is also the head ! 

But let us enquire who were the members of this tribunal ? 
I believe it may be confidently said, that there is not one of 
them who is not a pensioner of Trinity Church ; or who is 
not a dependent on the wealth of that corporation. I speak 
of the present time, for at the time that this tribunal sat, 
there was one exception, I mean the Rev. Dr. R. C. Moore. 
But I understand he has lately, very lately, found favour in 
the eyes of the church. The names of those who voted 
against Mr. Jones, appear to the final sentence. They are 
the Rev. Mr. Wilkins, the Rev. Mr. Bartow, the Rev. Mr. 
Bowden, the Rev. Mr. Cooper, the Rev. Mr. Phelps, the 
Rev. Mr. Reed, the Rev. Mr. Bowen, the Rev. Mr. Lyell, 
the Rev. Mr. Judd, the Rev. Mr. Hart, the Rev. Mr. Bulktey, 
and, though last, not least, the Rev. Thomas Y. How. It 
will appear that all these, excepting, I believe, only two, had 
become so far parties to the controversy which really existed, 
that is, the controversy between Mr. Jones, bishop Hobart, 
and Mr. How, that they had given certificates upon the sub- 
ject ; and these certificates appear in Dr. Hobart's letter to 
the vestry. But above all, that Mr. How sjiould appear as 



103 

a member of this tribunal — Mr. How, who is himself guilty 
of the crime of publishing a book, if it be a crime ; and a 
book in relation to the very matters respecting which he was 
about to assume the character of a judge. — Mr. How, who 
had been restrained by no considerations of mercy or pru- 
dence in his angry and violent declarations against Mr. 
Jones. That Mr. How should not only appear as a member 
of this tribunal, but that he should have acted as the very 
soul of it, cannot but excite astonishment. His zeal in his 
new profession, must have obscured the principles of justice 
which it is to be presumed he had acquired in his former 
pursuits. 

Chief Justice Kent interrupted Mr. Colden, and said, Mr. 
Colden, I have heard you a long time. You have talked 
about the clergy in a way that it is painful to hear. One 
minute you eulogise one clergyman, and the next you con- 
demn another. Some time ago you praised Dr. Moore ; and 
afterwards you insinuated that he had taken a bribe from 
Trinity Church. 

Mr. Colden. I made no such charge, sir. I merely 
mentioned what were facts ; that Dr. Moore was not a pen- 
sioner of Trinity Church when the sentence against Mr, 
Jones was pronounced ; and that they had since voted him a 
pension. I am convinced that Dr. Moore has not understood 
me as making a disrespectful insinuation, and was not dis 
pleased with what I have said. 

Chief Justice Kent. Yes, but my dear sir, I have heard 
you from beginning to end with disgust. I do not mean 
as to your speaking or abilities in managing your cause ; but 
as to yom treatment of the clergy. Are we to sit here, and 
in this public assembly hear the church trampled in the dust ? 
It is injuring the cause of religion. You are now speaking 
of Mr. How. God knows I have no bias any way. I know 
none of the parties. Mr. How I never saw till yesterday. 
But if you talk of the clergy as you have done, I'll go home. 
We came here to hear a cause between the vestry and Mr. 
Jones. What has Mr. How. to do with it ? Mr. How is no 
party, and cannot defend himself. Unless you alter your 



104- 

manner of speaking of the clergy I'll take up my hat and go 
right away home. I wont sit here. 

Mr. C olden. In what I have said, sir, I have intended 
to offend no one. I have intended to make use of no expres- 
sion which I did not think truth, and the cause I advocate 
required. If, in the course of a very long address, I have 
violated this intention, I am sorry for it. But I believe it 
seldom happens, that a person who finds himself under the 
necessity of speaking for so many hours in succession, as I 
have done, does not make use of some expressions which he 
regrets, and wishes he had an opportunity of clothing his 
ideas in different language. That a person speaking from the 
impulse of the moment may not always use the most decorous 
expression, I should think your honor would admit; and 
were it not so, I think your honor would not have adopted 
the language you have just used. 

Chief Justice, Kent. Well, sir, I have been very sick, 
I have been unable to be on the bench all day ; and have 
come out in this bad weather to sit on this arbitration. I am 
very sorry I had any thing to do with it. I thought it was a 
mere controversy between the vestry and Mr. Jones ; but if 
I had known what sort of a controversy it was, I never 
would have sat. 

Mr. C olden. I certainly did not intend to treat Mr. How 
with any disrespect. I meant to mark with emphasis, that 
he who appears to have been -one of the parties in the con- 
troversy which did really exist, that is, the controversy be- 
tween Dr Hobart, Mr. How, and Mr. Jones, was called to 
sit as a judge in a case in which the merits of that controversy 
were involved; and I must be permitted to state further, that 
we shall prove, that Mr. How not only acted as a judge, but 
that in the convocation he took upon himself the part of 
an active and zealous partizan, against the accused : That 
he it was, who was most clamorous to silence Dr. Moore, 
when he attempted to intreat the assembly to deliberate be- 
fore they acted. At this very time Mr. How was a dependant 
on the pleasure of Trinity Church, for more than half his 
annual income of eleven hundred pounds a year ; five hun- 
dred of which only was a fixed salary. It is a fact, also, that 



105 

Mr. Jones, being a much older ^servant of the church than 
Mr. How, must, according to what has been the usual course 
of succession to the rectory, have been preferred before Mr. 
How, to that office, unless his character could be successful- 
ly assailed, or his connection with the church be severed by 
some such proceedings as Mr. How was then taking a part in. 

I do not pretend to say, that these circumstances influenced 
Mr. How. But ihey are such facts, as no rules of decorum 
or reverence for the clergy require me to conceal. I never 
have believed that clergymen were born differently from other 
men, or that they came into the world with different tempers 
or dispositions. But I have reverenced them, because I did 
believe, that men who were^ abstracted from all the worldly 
contentions, in which those who have other pursuits are en- 
gaged ; whose constant study is the precepts of religion and 
morality, and whose business it is to teach them to others, 
would have their oavU hearts purified. But I regret to say, 
that what I have seen in the course of this business, has in- 
duced me to fear that there are many of the servants of the 
sanctuary who are as much under the influence of the evi! 
passions of our nature as other men, and that the lowest as 
well as the highest office in the church, can be as much ail 
object of ambition and envy, as if we poor laymen might 
contend for them. 

But, whatever expressions of irreverence may have escaped 
me on this occasion, I am confident I can have used none 
half so reproachful as those which have been applied to Mr. 
Jones; and even to bishop Provoost ; and this too, by reve- 
rend divines. Let me ask the arbitrators to look into the 
volumes of pamphlets written against Mr. Jones which are 
now before me, and which will be put into their hands ; they 
will see that the language does not afford terms more oppro- 
brious, than those which have been used without any re- 
straint, by the consideration that they are used by clergy- 
men against clergymen. 

But I return to the course of proceedings against Mr. 
Jones. 

One of the objections which Mr. Jones verbally made to 
the legality or competency of the tribunal which he found 



108 

assembled to decide upon his case, was, that there were 
presbyters of the diocese who were not present and who had 
not been summoned. The canon requires that the reference 
of the controversies which it contemplates, shall be to the 
bishop and his presbyters, It cannot be disputed, that this 
means all his presbyters* Now it is very certain that there 
were presbyters who had not been summoned, and who were 
not present : among others who were absent, were the reve- 
rend Mr. Jarvis of Blomingdale, and the reverend Mr. David 
Moore of Staten-Island. These gentlemen were in priests 
orders ; of course they were presbyters : and they were pres- 
byters of bishop Moore, if he was diocesan, because they 
were settled and had charge of parishes in the diocese ; We 
shall be able to offer evidence as extraordinary, as convincing^ 
that bishop Moore considered the reverend Mr. Jarvis as one 
of his presby ters. The reverend Dr. Richard C. Moore, the 
reverend Dr. Harris, and the reverend Mr. Feltus, as ap- 
pears by the documents before the arbitrators, entered a pro- 
test against bishop Moore's acting as the diocesan ; and conse- 
quently again&t the proceedings of the assembled presbyters 
convened by his authority. Some time after the sentence 
against Mr. Jones had been pronounced, bishop Moore gave 
Mr. Jarvis a written order not to permit either of the gentlemen 
who had protested, to officiate in his pulpit 1 Can there be 
?nore convincing evidence of any thing, than this is, that 
bishop Moore considered Mr. Jarvis one of his presbyters* 

But I cannot pass over this interdiction of the gentlemen 
who protested with so slight a notice; it does appear to me, 
one of the most tyrannical proceedings I ever heard of- 
These gentlemen are called, as members of a tribunal, to 
exercise their judgments on a case which is presented for their 
consideration ; they proceed according to the dictates of their 
judgments and consciences ; and because the opinions they 
deliver are not pleasing to the bishop, they are punished. 
Was there ever such an outrage upon justice ? Knowing, as 
I do, that these things have taken place, is it extraordinary 
that I should express with some warmth and zeal, that abhor- 
ence of them which I feel ? And which I trust every man 
who hears me, will feel. 



tor 

But to return to the consideration of the objection on ac- 
count of the absence of some of the presbyters : It will 
hardly be denied, that Mr. Jarvis, Mr. Moore, and several 
other priests, having parishes in the state, who were absent., 
were presbyters of the diocese. If the canon required their 
presence, the proceedings of the tribunal, without them were 
illegal and void. Independently of the wording of the can- 
on, which however can leave no doubt on the subject, it is 
obvious, that a question ot this nature ought not to be left to 
the decision of a part of the presbyters. If a part may form 
a competent tribunal, what part must it be ? Shall it be 
a half, a third, or less ? or shall the bishop not only be at 
liberty to determine the number, but to select such of the 
presbyters as he may please ? If this should be established 
as the law of the church, from that moment no clergyman 
could be considered as -holding an independent Jiviug. The 
most trilling difference between him and his vestry, might 
be magnified into a controversy; and if two or three presby- 
ters, from envy or interest, should be inimical to him, they 
might be assembled by the bishop, and they might treat him 
tis Mr. Jones has been treated. Indeed the clergy who 
sanction these proceedings, in their zeal to punish Mr. Jones, 
are taking the most effectual means to destroy their own in- 
dependence and respectability, 

Mr. Jones having quit the tribunal, a scene ensued which 
J shall not attempt to describe, further than as relates to 
the conduct of the members to the reverend Dr. Moore. It 
has been already mentioned, that this gentleman, with Dr. 
Harris and Mr. Feltus, entered a protest. Previously to their 
doing this, however, Dr. Moore attempted to speak in favour 
of Mr. Jones. For fear what he should say might be misrepre- 
sented, Dr. Moore had the precaution to reduce to writing 
the speech he intended to deliver. I am happy that we have 
it in our power to present it to the arbitrators ; it is as hon- 
ourable to the head as to the heart of the author : it will be 
found extremely apposite to the questions which the tribu- 
nal ought to have discussed, and is in the most conciliating 
and respectful language. But as soon as it was understood 
-thai Dr. Moore meant to question the authority of bishop 



40S 

Moore, and that he intended to palliate or excuse Mr. 
Jones's conduct, he was interrupted — he was accused of in- 
sulting the bishop, and of discussing points which were irrele- 
vant. Again and again did Dr. Moore attempt to proceed in- 
reading his speech ; but again and again was he interrupted by 
an almost general clamour. Indignant at the treatment he 
had received, and at the disposition it manifested ; he refused 
to finish his speech, although he was, after so many interrup- 
tions, sarcastically invited by some of the members to do so. 

I shall forbear to make any other observations on this con- 
duct, because the force of them could not be felt unless the 
arbitrators had heard the eloquent speech to which I have 
referred. 

The gentlemen who protested, having withdrawn, Mr. Jones 
was left entirely to the mercy of the bishop, who was, as I 
must again remind the arbitrators, in his quality of rector, a 
party complainant, and of the certificate makers. They 
completed their work ; and that same evening, at about eight 
o'clock, Mr. Jones was served with the document which I 
will now read. — (See p. 7 — 10.J 

The original manuscript which was served on Mr. Jones, I 
have now in my hand; it is dated the 5th of Oct. This is not a 
mere error of the pen. It is the true date of the instrument. For 
we shall prove that the very paper whicli I now hold, was al- 
ready prepared before the meeting in November. That when 
it was wanted at that time, it was sent for, and was produced 
for the signature of the bishop and presbyters, with all the 
dates and sums filled up, precisely in the state in which the 
arbitrators now see it. So far had the measures of the tribu- 
nal been preconcerted, and so firmly had the fate of Mr. Jones 
been fixed by these impartial judges ! We shall prove by the 
declarations of a very active, though not a very prudent 
member of the tribunal, made previously to the meeting in 
November, that all these matters had been preconcerted, and 
that the result would be such as it has been. 

But the date is not the only extraordinary part of this in- 
strument. There are other matters appearing on the face of 
it which deserve some consideration. Upon the recital 
which it contains, that Mr. Jones's remonstrance had been 



109 

sent to the vestry, and that he had been fully heard, in rela- 
tion to the controversy, I have already remarked. The ar- 
bitrators will perceive too, by this document, how much, in 
the course of these proceedings, has rested en the individual 
will or determination of the bishop. He, in the first, instance, 
of himself, and without the concurrence of his presbyters, 
undertakes to decide that the application of the vestry is one 
that comes within the purview of the canon. Now, if we 
recollect that the bishop here speaking, is himself the head 
of the vestry from whence the application comes, what a 
mockery of justice do all these solemn recitals appear ? Was 
there ever before such an instance of the same person being 
party, judge, and executioner ? 

Again ; any man, not otherwise informed, would certainly 
suppose, from reading this document, that no other presbyters 
had been assembled than those who signed it; and he could 
have no suspicion that it was not the unanimous act of al! 
who were assembled. Mr. Jones, says the bishop, had been 
served with a notice to appear before " me and imj presbyters." 
And then, again it is said, that " we, (he said bishop and his 
" presbyters, who have subscribed these presents, were duly 
" assembled." Now would this language lead any one to 
suspect that there were presbyters assembled who had not 
signed ? Much less could they suspect that there were several 
venerable and respectable divines, who had entered a solemn 
and formal protest. The omission of so important a circum- 
stance, among all the particular recitals which this instru- 
ment contains, can only be accounted for upon the supposi- 
tion that it was fabricated before the meeting in November ; 
or that there was a design to impose it on the world as the 
unanimous act of the assembled presbyters, and to keep out 
of view that such men as Dr. Harris, Dr. Moore, and Sir. 
Feltus, had dissented from the proceedings. 

This sentence, by which Mr. Jones- was to be reduced 
from affluence to poverty ; which required him to relinquish 
an income of eleven hundred pounds a year, and to live Upon 
seventy ; which was to separate him from his friends, and 
drive him from his native city; which, at an advanced age, 
was to turn him on the world with a degraded character, was 



110 

served on Mr. Jones at about eight o'clock in the evening af 
the day it was passed. It will be seen, that it. requires an 
answer by one o'clock the next day. Did they who pro- 
nounced this dreadful sentence recollect, that Mr. Jones was 
a husband and a father ? Did they recollect that he had a 
wife to whom he was to communicate the dreadful tidings 
which this paper bears? Did they recoliect that he had 
daughters, who he was to reconcile to the cruel fate it de- 
nounces ? Had they none of those sympathies which are so 
honourable to men, when they allowed Mr. Jones but a few 
foours to deliberate on the hard alternative they offered him ? 
I happened to be present when the familiar of the holy office 
appointed to deliver the sentence executed his commission.— 
While the weeping mother and trembling children were look- 
ing on him with horror, I saw him, after lie had performed 
his task, seat himself by the side of the distracted father* 
and with the calmness and familiar manner of a visiting ac- 
quaintance, rub his hands and ask " how is the family !" It 
appeared to me like planting a dagger in a man's breast, and 
asking him how he felt. 

On the same evening that Mr. Jones received this decree 
of the conclave, he sent it to bishop Provoost, under cover 
of a letter, asking his advice. Bishop Provoost returned Mr. 
Jones an answer, saying, that he thought the proceedings 
unauthorized by the constitution and canons of the church ; 
and were not sanctioned by the principles of our religion 
or humanity* He therefore advised Mr. Jones to disregard 
them. 

The next day, at the appointed hour, the assistant bishop 
and his presbyters met. Mr. Jones sent them the letter he 
had received from bishop Provoost ; and they pronounced their 
final sentence, interdicting Mr. Jones from exercising the 
office of a priest, either in this diocese or in any other in the 
United States. 

It is from this sentence that he now appeals to you. If 
there was no controversy between Mr. Jones and his congre- 
gation, or if there was not such a controversy as the canon 
applies to. — If no efforts were made to settle it. — If bishop 
Moore was not the diocesan. — Jf the tribunal which passed 



Ill 

the sentence was not convened according to the laws of thf 
church. — If the members, or any of them, on account of their 
connection with the controversy, or on account of their con- 
nection with, or dependence on the vestry, were incompe- 
tent judges — you will decide that the proceedings were ille- 
gal, and that the sentence is void. Mr. Jones will then have 
a right to claim that station, the duties of which he discharg- 
ed for so many years with a zeal and piety which should be 
an example to others. 

But by the articles of submission it is agreed, that the 
quantum of compensation which should be allowed to Mr. 
Jones, shall be considered as open for adjustment and settle, 
ment by the arbitrators; notwithstanding any decision o£ 
theirs, establishing the validity of the suspension. Though 
the event contemplated by this provision, we are confident 
cannot happen, yet it is proper that I should bring it to the 
notice of the arbitrators. I rejoice that the painful and labo- 
rious task I have had to perform is so near a conclusion; and 
that I shall have but a few words to say on this subject. 

The compensation which the impartial, generous, and mag 
nanimous presbyters awarded to Mr. Jones, out of the inex- 
haustible treasures of Trinity Church, is one thousand pounds* 
affording, for the support of himself and his family, a revenue 
of seventy pounds a year; — about a twentieth part of what 
Mr. How was receiving from the same source, at the moment 
he pronounced this sentence. — For let it be remarked, thai 
Mr. Jones and the presbyters attached to Trinity Church, 
who were his unbiassed and disinterested judges, were, at the 
time the sentence was pronounced, in the annual receipt oi 
eleven hundred pounds from the rich coffers of Trinity Church; 
besides perquisites, such as marriages, christenings and the 
Tike, which, by the blessing of God, were of no inconsidera- 
ble amount. 

Let me remind the arbitrators, that Mr. Jcne3 held his 
place under a contract for life. He, therefore, very justly 
calculated that he could not be deprived of it, unless he 
should be legally convicted of some misconduct that would 
render him unfit to discharge the duties of his sacred office. 
Relying that his contract and the purity of fcis conduct would 



112 

always secure to him the means, he had lived in a style be 
coming bis station ; and had reared his family with corres= 
pondent ideas. How must they feel their change of fortune ? 
They may well turn to these righteous judges, and ask, what 
have we done — what has our father done, that you will bring 
this affliction upon us .? 

With what detestation I should hear a cold hearted presby- 
ter answer these innocent victims, " the good of the church 
" requires it — go work for your living. — It is for the good of 
" the church that you and your parents should he reduced to 
" poverty." This must have been the answer, for the rev^ 
erend divines, who have pronounced the father's doom, do 
not pretend that they have tried him for, much less that they 
have convicted him of, any offence. On the contrary, they 
seem to exult in the success of that ingenuity by which they 
have contrived to effect his ruin, without even affording him 
the forms of a trial. When the friends of Mr. Jones have 
said there was no mercy in the punishment they have inflict- 
ed, the answer has been — He is not punished. He was not 
even accused of any crime. He does not therefore suffer tor 
demerits, but because the good of the church requires it. — 
Most true it is, that there never was even an accusation 
against Mr. Jones ; for the very delegates of the vestry, who 
were sent as his prosecutors before their dependents, declared 
to the assembled presbyters, that they had nothing to allege 
against the morals, the piety, or the zeal of Mr. Jones. They 
only asked, that they would consign him and his family to 
poverty, because the good of the church required it ! 

Will the arbitrators believe, that the cause of religion 
could require that an innocent man and his family should be 
thus sacrificed ? What would one of the present incumbents 
of the vestry say, if he were told that the good of the church 
required that he should resign his present income and live on 
seventy pounds a year? Notwithstanding all the zeal for the 
good of the church, which is to justify the proceedings a- 
gainst Mr. Jones, I fear we should hear some bitter mur- 
minings. 

Mr. Jones stands before the arbitrators, by the confession 
of his adversaries, an innocent, unoffending man. Why is 






113 

he to be banished, degraded, and impoverished ? The good 
of the church cannot require such an unrighteous sacrifice* 
If Trinity Church would dissolve their contract, and separate 
from Mr. Jones, let it be done on just principles. This canr* 
not be, unless they afford him a competency for the support 
of himself and his family : To suffer them now, after he has 
faithfully and zealously served them for so many years, when 
he is advanced in life, to degrade him, to banish him, and 
turn him and his family on the world in poverty, would be 
to sanction the most cruel injustice. 

I have now but a word more to say. I well know how in- 
timately the welfare of society is connected with a reverence 
and respect for religion, and for its professors. That the 
discussion of this cause has disclosed things which may tend 
to take from the respect which ought to belong to some, who 
are connected with it, I deeply regret. But let me repeat, 
that if I have said more that may have this tendency, than 
my cause, and truth and justice required, I am sincerely sorry 
for it. Many of the vestry are my most intimate friends; 
many of them, who I now see here, I most sincerely love 
and respect: and I shall indeed be sorry, if I have, unneces- 
sarily, said one word to offend them. 

Though I know, by many, I am looked upon a9 an outcast 
of the religious society to which I belong, my own consci- 
ence approves the part I have taken. If I know myself, I 
am actuated by no motives but such as deserve approbation— 
certainly they are disinterested. No man who is actuated 
by mere motives of interest, would court the frowns of so in- 
fluential a body as that of the vestry of Trinity Church. 
Towards Mr. Jones, I have not those obligations which com- 
monly bind an advocate to his client. I have not, and never 
will receive any pecuniary consideration from him. But if 
my feeble exertions shall tend to rescue him and his innocent 
family from distress, I shall have all the reward I ever ex- 
pected, and all I will ever receive. 

After Mr. Golden had sat down, the reverend Mr. Lyell 
had some conversation with him. On which 

Mr. C olden addressed the arbitrators, and said, the reve- 
rend Mr. Lyell informs me, that I have made a mistake, 

p 



which he desires me to correct. He says, he did not rub his 
hands, and ask how are the family, after he had delivered 
the sentence to Mr. Jones, as I have represented ; but that 
it was before he delivered it, the enquiry was made. 

Mr. Colden having closed his remarks, and some progress 
being made in the examination of witnesses, the arbitrators 
adjourned on the 9th of May, to meet again at the city of 
Albany, on the 27th day of July following. It was also a- 
greed between the parties, that during the period of their ad- 
journment, the testimony in the case should be taken, before 
a commissioner, or some other person duly authorized, to be 
appointed by the arbitrators; and that all the testimony, 
so taken, should be returned into the hands of the commit 
sioneF, on or before the 15th of July 1813. 



TESTIMONY 



IN THE CASE OF THE 



REV. MR. JONES JLND TEE VESTRY OF 
TRINITY CHURCH. 



ALBANY, JULY 21th, 1513,. 
The arbitrators in this case all attended* 

Present, 

Chief Justice Kent, 
The Hon, S. Thompson, The Hon, A. Spencer, 

The Hon. W. W. Van Ness, The Hon. JL C. Yates. 

THE testimony which had been taken, since the last meet- 
ing of the arbitrators, having been presented to them ; the 
answer of the Rev. Abraham Beach, D.D. and of Mr. Isaac 
Lawrence,* were objected to, on the part of the defendants, 
as having been taken several days after the expiration of the 
time to which the parties had been limited, by agreement, to 
examine witnesses., 

A few remarks were made by the counsel for the plaintiff, 
upon which the arbitrators determined, that they <;ould not 
foe received as testimony in this case. 

Ne7v~YorJc, ss. Frederick Depeyster of the city of 
New-York, merchant, a witness produced on behalf of the 
plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposeih and saith,'that he was 
a member of the vestry of Trinity Church in the year 1798 
or 1799, and continued so until they did him the honour to 
turn him out in the year 1812. During that time the plaintiff 
was called as an assistant minister of that church, at a 

* For these answers, see Appendix. 



116 

salary of five hundred pounds a year j which was the general 
salary given to all the assistant ministers. Upon, or soon 
after the call of the plaintiff, the vestry made an annual allow- 
ance to all the clergymen of Trinity Church, of five hundred 
dollars each, in addition to their salary ; and afterwards, on 
the suggestion of Dr. Hobart, the additional allowance of 
five hundred dollars was granted for seven years. Some time 
after, but when, particularly, he does not remember, a gratu- 
ity of one thousand dollars a year was given to each of the 
ministers of Trinity Church. It was generally understood 
that the allowances above mentioned were to be continued 
from year to year, as he presumed. The deponent considered 
this allowance within the power of the vestry to withhold, 
but he presumes that they would not withhold it : — that at the 
time he left the vestry, the plaintiff and the other assistant 
ministers of Trinity Church received eleven hundred pounds 
a year, including the gratuitous allowances aforesaid : — that 
some months after the first report of the committee of the ves- 
try of Trinity Church upon the plaintiff's book, entitled " A 
Solemn Appeal," he the deponent observed in the vestry, 
that if Dr. Hobart and Mr. How would take half the pains 
to extinguish the flame, that they had in fanning it, that all 
would be peace : — that this expression was made when the 
vestry were engaged in conversation, in relation to the state 
of the church. He has always considered that the differences 
in the church were confined to Dr. Hobart, Mr. How and 
the plaintiff: — that the deponent was induced to express the 
opinion above stated concerning Doctor Hobart and Mr. 
How, from the circumstance of having been called upon by both 
those gentlemen ; and hearing that they called on others, res- 
pecting the difference between themselves and the plaintiff: — 
that he considered that the call of Doctor Hobart and Mr. 
How upon him, was in his capacity as a member of the 
vestry of Trinity Church : — that the deponent had several 
conversations with Doctor Hobart and Mr. How on the sub- 
ject of the plaintiff: — that he does not recollect any thing 
harsh, or improper, said by Doctor Hobart, except the ex- 
pression of Doctor Hobart, that the plaintiff ought, or must 
quit the diocese ; but the precise words he cannot recollect— 



117 

the expressions were strong and decided, but not harsh, or 
indelicate. One of his conversations with Doctor Hobart 
lasted two or three hours : — that in one of the conversations 
which the deponent had with Mr. How on the subject of the 
diiference with the plaintiff,his expressions were vehement,ail 
tending to the necessity of the plaintiff's quitting the diocese, 
or parish, which, he does not remember : — the said Mr. How 
said that the plaintiff was a turbulent and dissatisiied man, 
who would keep the church in confusion ; the precise words 
he does not remember ; but the purport was, that the plaintiff 
was so here, when in college, and while residing in Virginia : 
— that this struck the deponent as strange, having never 
heard any thing like it before concerning the plaintiff; and 
upon inquiry respecting his conduct in college, the depo- 
nent found the information of Mr. How incorrect, but he 
believes Mr. How had been so informed, or that he would 
not have said so : — that Mr. How in the same conversation 
before referred to said, that the plaintiff was a rascal and 
villain, and upon being remonstrated with by the deponent, 
he said, that he thanked him for checking him. The deponent 
does not remember any other expressions used by Mr. How 
that were exceptionable • he has no recollection of more than 
two conversations with Mr.Howon the subject of the aforesaid 
difference : — that the last conversation, and the one in which 
the expressions before mentioned past, was at the house of 
the deponent : — that from the facts within the knowledge of 
this deponent, he is of opinion, that the vestry would not 
have proceeded any further against the plaintiff than the first cen- 
sure, if they had not been goaded on by Doctor Hobart and 
Mr. How. The report of the committee on the state of the 
church, which was made in September, recommended an 
application to the bishop and his presbyters, on the subject 
of the difference with the plaintiff: — the deponent supposed 
that the above committee was appointed for the purpose of 
considering of the expediency of separating St. George's 
and St. Paul's Churches, and the various applications of 
other churches, for assistance, and were to continue until 
those subjects were disposed of: he believes that the com- 
mittee was appointed in the spring of 1810 or 11, There 



lis 

never was to his knowledge any special reference of the mat- 
ters in difference with the plaintiff, after the report of the 
committee, to whom the plaintiff's book was referred, had 
been agreed toj nor a word spoken on the subject afterwards 
in the vestry, to his knowledge. The deponent had no pre- 
vious knowledge that it was intended to take any steps res- 
pecting the plaintiff at the meeting of the vestry which re- 
ceived the report of the committee in September 1811 — that 
the circumstances, in relation to this business, made no dis- 
tinct impression on his mind, and he cannot pretend to accu- 
racy either as to date3 or circumstances, but that he is very 
certain that he had no expectation of hearing any such report 
or proceeding, when he went to the vestry on that day. That 
the vestry, on the day the report aforesaid was made, receiv- 
ed a letter from the plaintiff, of which no notice was taken 
by the vestry ; whereupon the deponent asked, " what order 
was to be taken upon the letter," and he was answered, that 
it would be filed. The deponent is well satisfied that no 
other communication passed between the plaintiff and the 
vestry, after the resolution of the vestry in the month of 
May 1811, until the aforesaid report in September following. 
He has never heard that any official notice was given to the 
plaintiff that any difference existed between the vestry and 
him ; and he does not believe that any such notice has been 
given. And the deponent never considered, that such differ- 
ence ever did exist ; and if it did exist, no means were ever 
taken by the vestry to heal it, to the deponents knowledge 
or belief. The deponent says, that of the presbyters who 
sat on the question between the plaintiff and the vestry of 
Trinity Church, all except two or three had received aid, or 
were in expectation, directly or indirectly, of aid from the 
said vestry : — that an annual donation of five hundred dollars, 
which had been paid to Dr. Harris for several years, was 
stopped after the protest of Dr. Harris to the proceedings of 
the presbyters, and the deponent has not a shadow of doubt, 
that the said allowance was withheld, in consequence of 
Doctor Harris having made the said protest, and the dignified 
stand he took with the plaintiff in the controversy between 
him and Doctor Hobari and Mr. How ; aad because he would 



110 

not join in the prosecution and persecution of the plaintiff by 
those gentlemen,and would not bow to those gentlemen : — that 
there is no fixed mode by which the donations to ministers 
not belonging to Trinity Church are given, but it is altogeth- 
er dependent on the will of the vestry. 

The deponent on being cross-examined says, that, accord 
ing to his opinion, there was no difference between the vestry 
and the plaintiff anterior to the report of the committee on 
the state of the church, and subsequent to the report of the 
committee on the plaintiff's book : — that from the time of the 
report of the committee on the state of the church, the ves- 
try became parties to the controversy, as he understood : — 
that according to his understanding, there was no dispute, 
or difference betwen the vestry of Trinity Church and the 
plaintiff at the time the committee, to whom the plaintiff's 
book was referred, made their report, and the resolution of 
the vestry thereupon, except what was embraced in that re- 
port and resolution : — that there was not, according to the 
understanding and belief of the deponent, any misunderstand- 
ing or difference between the plaintiff and the congregation 
of Trinity Church, between the time of the publication of 
the plaintiff's book and the report of the committee on the 
state of the church, excepting among a few ladies : — that he 
did hear, that two or three ladies, between the periods before 
mentioned, had refused to hear the plaintiff preach : and the 
ieponent heard others say the same with respect to Dr. Ho 
bart and Mr. How ; all owing to the same controversy. He 
cannot say, that there was a state of uneasiness in the con- 
gregation, in relation to the said controversy, because, with 
all the pains taken to promote it, it was confined to very few : 
—-that the deponent was left out of the vestry in consequence 
of the difference that subsisted between them and the plain- 
tiff; but that very unfair means were resorted to, in order to 
effect that object ; such as a report, that he, the deponent, 
declined a re-election. The deponent says, that it was usual 
to agree upon a ticket previous to an election of vestrymen ; 
that such ticket was agreed upon at that time, and his name 
was upon it ; and that afterwards some person, at the store of 
Mr. Swords, struck out the deponent's name, and with a pen 



120 

substituted the name of Mr. Skinner, which ticket was cir- 
culated as the ticket of the vestry, as the deponent was in- 
formed and doth believe. Sometime after the publication of 
the plaintiff's book, the deponent called on Dr. Hobart in re- 
lation to the controversy between the plaintiff and him ; — at 
the time it was determined in the vestry not to continue the 
gratuity of five hundred dollars a year to Dr. Harris, he did 
not hear it assigned publicly as a reason that Dr. Harris re- 
ceived five hundred dollars from the college, and he does not 
believe that that was the reason — but an individual of the 
vestry mentioned the circumstance privately to the deponent : 
— that what he has said in this examination respecting the 
vestry having been goaded on to take steps against the plain- 
tiff, he has no personal knowledge of, except what he has 
stated respecting Dr. Hobart and Mr. How's calling upon 
him ; all the rest is from what he has heard from others— -who 
said, that they had been conversed with by those gentlemen 
on the subject : — that all the ministers belonging to the epis- 
copal church in the state of New-York, either had, or ex- 
pected to receive aid from the vestry of Trinity Church, in 
the same sense and manner as he means to be understood 
in relation to the presbyters who sat in the business of the 
plaintiff. 

Garret H. Van Wagenen, as examined before the arbi- 
trators personally ; — Was a member of Trinity Church. Al- 
ways understood the call for life, except for some mal-practice 
to be proved. Was a member of the vestry, when the reso- 
lution was adopted expressive of their disapprobation of Mr. 
Jones's publication. Dr. Hobart called at his house next day, 
and observed, the vestry had not done any thing, — had not 
done half enough. Witness replied, they had done too much. 
And remarked that his reason for so saying was, that it was 
not their concern. They had nothing to do with it. Dr. Ho- 
bart said, his character was suffering. 

Being cross examined : Witness knows of no act interpret- 
ing the call ; but his opinion is founded on general conversa- 
tion and communications with the vestry. On account of 
this opinion, Mr. Berrian was called during pleasure. Mr. 



121 

Jones shewed the manuscript to witness, who dissuaded him 
from laying it before the convention : said it would be injuri- 
ous to himself and to the church. Dr. Hobart was then consid- 
ered as the candidate for the episcopate : was spoken of as a 
person contemplated to fill that office. 

Thomas Hamersley, also examined before the arbitrators : 
— Some time, about a fortnight after the consecration, Mr. 
Irving and himself had a conversation with Dr. Hobart, who 
said Mr. Jones must quit the church. Afterwards in the 
course of conversation, witness proposed some detached 
church, by which he might have a seat in convention. Dr. 
Hobart said, as to that, he must quit the diocese. This he 
conceived to be in consequence of Dr. Hobart having lost 
confidence in Mr. Jones. 

New-York, ss. William Irving of the city of New- York, 
merchant, a witness on the part of the plaintiff, being duly 
sworn, deposeth and saith, that shortly after the publication 
of the plaintiff's book entitled " A Solemn Appeal," he hap- 
pened accidentally to go into the store of Mr. Hamersley in 
the city of New- York, where he found Doctor Hobart and 
the two Mr. Hamersley's in conversation on the subject of 
the plaintiff's book : the conversation continued after the 
deponent entered the store for an hour, or an hour and a 
half ; in which time Doctor Hobart entered very freely into 
the subject, and endeavoured to explain, and justify himself 
against all the charges contained in the plaintiff's book against 
him. After the conversation on the subject of the book had 
ended, some one present expressed a wish that the subject in 
difference with the plaintiff might be settled, and that that 
was the wish of the plaintiff himself; who, this deponent 
said, had in his opinion suffered enough, for any indiscretion 
he had been guilty of ; upon which Doctor Hobart replied* 
that he could have no confidence in the plaintiff; that he had 
sufficiently tried accommodation heretofore; alluding, as the 
deponent supposed, to other subjects, and that he was weari- 
ed of it ; and he then appealed to the persons present, how 
they would like in their business to be connected with one 



who was always dissatisfied, suspicious, and noting dowti 
private conversations. Upon which the deponent remarked, 
that he did not think the connection of Dr. Hobart with the 
plaintiff, was analogous to that of copartners in business* 
especially as Dr. Hobart was now a bishop, and the plaintiff 
remained an assistant minister ? and it would be his duty to 
obey. Dr. Hobart then said, that the plaintiff was a turbu- 
lent, factious man, and might have it in his power to make 
the situation of the bishop very unpleasant, and might occa* 
sion disagreement and dissatisfaction in the convention ; and' 
mentioned several other cases that might arise, in which the 
plaintiff could render his, Dr. Hobart's, situation very disa- 
greeable ; the deponent then observed that he could not see 
how these things were to be remedied by ejecting the plain- 
tiff from Trinity Church, because he might still be called 
either in the city or in the country within the diocese, and 
so remain a member of the convention* Dr. Hobart replied, 
" Oh sir, he must go out of the diocese," and upon going 
round the counter, Dr» Hobart repeated the same thing. The 
deponent saith, that there was nothing harsh in Dr. Hobart's 
manner, on the foregoing occasion ; and Dr.Hobart said, that 
he had no hostility to the plaintiff; that he wished him and 
his family well ; that Trinity Church might pour its wealth 
into his lap ; but that, as the head of the church, he believed 
its peace and welfare required that the plaintiff should leave 
the diocese. Dr. Hobart also observed, that he was so wea- 
ried of the controversy, that if it was not that he was placed 
in the church as he then was, (alluding, as the deponent un- 
derstood, to his being bishop) he would withdraw from Trinity 
Church, and leave it in peace ; and added " You gentlemen 
" only think and converse on this matter occasionally, but 
' ; my head and heart are full of it." Dr. Hobart also observed, 
that if the vestry of Trinity Church had done its duty in the 
first instance, it would have occasioned a small ferment, but 
which would then have all subsided, and the church would 
have been at peace. Mr. T. Hamersley said that he thought 
the vestry had gone far enough, and that he hoped, or expect- 
ed, (the deponent does not remember which) that they would 
do no more j upon which Dr. Hobart replied rather jocosely* 



123 

i well, I know what I can do," and upon being asked by Mr, 
Hamersley, what that was ? Dr. Hobart replied, " I will not 
tell you," I can keep my own counsel, and you, at any rate, 
will give me credit for energy of character. All which was 
said as Dr. Hobart was leaving the store, and in the same 
jocose manner before mentioned. The deponent has no per- 
gonal knowledge of any means having been taken by Dr. Ho- 
bart, or any other of his particular friends, to excite clamour 
against the plaintiff. The deponent says, that some time af- 
ter the conversation with Dr. Hobart, he received from Mr* 
Swords a pamphlet marked " Private," which was Dr. Ho- 
barfs letter to the vestry of Trinity Church. The deponent 
was not a member of the vestry ; he cannot remember the 
time when he received the above mentioned pamphlet, but 
knows that it was very soon, within a few days, after it was 
printed. Mr. Swords, who brought it to him, and who was 
the publisher, is a very particular friend of the deponent ; 
and would, as the deponent believes, very naturally have 
given him the pamphlet of his own accord. The deponent 
says, that another edition of the same pamphlet was after 
wards advertised and sold by Sargeant, a bookseller* 

New-York, ss, Francis D^ominick, of the city of New- 
York, gentleman, aged seventy-six years and upwards, a wit- 
ness on the part of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposeth 
and saith, that he was a member of the vestry of Trinity 
Church at the time when the plaintiff published his book, en- 
titled a " Solemn Appeal," and had been a member for about 
fifteen years previous, and continued a member until April, 
1812. The deponent always considered, that the tenure of 
the office of an assistant minister of Trinity Church was for 
life, until lately that Mr. Berrian was called during pleasure, 
which the deponent considered a departure from the usual 
course. The call of Mr. Berrian was made subsequent to the 
controversy between the vestry and the plaintiff. The depo- 
nent remembers a Mr. Bissett, an assistant minister of Trini- 
ty Church, whom the vestry were very desirous of getting rid 
of, on account of his intemperance, and it was thought by the 
?«stry that they could not effect this but by proceeding a- 



12* 

gainst him for misconduct ; and they therefore took measures 
to prevail on him to resign, which he did. The conduct of 
the vestry was very tender towards Mr. Bissett on that occa- 
sion. And further he saith not. 

New-York, ss. John Ireland, of Brooklyn, in the coun- 
ty of Kings, in the State of New-York, a witness produced 
on the part of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposeth and 
saith, That he was a member of the general convention in 
1801, when bishop Moore was consecrated, and attended as a 
clerical delegate from the diocese of New-York ; — while in 
session in the lower house, the clerical delegates from the 
diocese of New-York received a communication from the 
house of bishops, requesting an interview, and they all ac- 
cordingly attended in the room where the bishops were as- 
sembled ; and bishop White, as presiding Bishop, informed 
them, that they had taken into mature deliberation the pro- 
posed resignation of bishop Provoost, and, that among other 
objections to receiving his resignation, they considered such a 
measure unprecedented in the church ; and that the object of 
calling upon them, was to enquire whether any one could re- 
member a single instance of a bishop's resignation. After wait- 
ing for some time, the deponent expecting that some of the 
delegates who were senior to him would make a reply, he ob- 
served, that he had no doubt if time was allowed, that such 
an instance could be produced ; but taken by surprise, he, the 
deponent, at that moment could not recollect one. And 
each of the other clerical delegates being interrogated, re- 
spectively replied, that they could not recollect any such in- 
stance. Bishop White then asked, how they could expect 
the house of bishops in this country, in the infant state of the 
church, to set such an example. The delegates then began 
to deplore the destitute state of the church in this diocese, 
without a bishop; when bishop White observed, that the 
church should not be left destitute, for that they would con- 
secrate Dr. Moore an assistant bishop to bishop Provoost. 
The deponent thereupon observed, that Dr. Moore had been 
elected by the state convention as the diocesan, and that 
consequently he could not be offered to the house of bishops 



; ±25 

as an assistant ; to which bishop White replied, that as the 
greater included the lesser, he presumed that those who had 
elected Dr. Moore as diocesan, could have no objection to 
his consecration as an assistant bishop ; to which all the dele- 
gates acquiesced and withdrew. Afterwards, on a commu- 
nication from the house of bishops, the lower house attended 
the consecration of Dr. Moore ; and the deponent understood, 
and as he firmly believes every other member in both houses 
understood, that he was consecrated an assistant bishop to 
bishop Provoost. The deponent says, that he is certain, that 
it was then understood, and as he believes by every member 
of both houses, that bishop Provoost's resignation was not 
then accepted. The clerical delegates who attended from 
this diocese in the general convention as aforesaid, were Dr. 
Beach, Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Hobart, and the deponent, who he 
thinks all waited on the house of bishops as aforesaid. The 
deponent says, that immediately after the interview with the 
house of bishops as aforesaid, he wrote to Dr. Moore, re- 
questing him to come on without delay to Trenton, which he 
did, and was met at the stage-house by the deponent and 
several of the clerical and lay delegates, who had an inter- 
view with Dr. Moore, and explained to him all that had pass- 
ed, and what is herein before related respecting his intended 
consecration; and particularly, that the clerical delegates 
from New-York, had acquiesced in his, Dr. Moore's conse- 
cration as an assistant to bishop Provoost ; to which Dr.. 
Moore replied, that if he had known so much before he left 
home, he would not have come on. The deponent has a dis- 
tinct recollection of the preceding observation of Dr. Moore, 
because he at the time chided the deponent, in terms of severi- 
ty, for not having communicated to him the terms on which 
he was to be consecrated bishop, as he did also another per- 
son present, who the deponent understood had likewise writ- 
ten to Dr. Moore on the subject. The deponent says, that 
fee has never had a doubt from the time of bishop Moore's 
consecration to the present, that bishop Provoost was the 
diocesan of this diocese, but he did suppose that an arrange- 
ment had been made between bishop Provoost and bishop 
Moore, by which bishop Provoost had delegated to bishop 



13S 

Moore the authority under which he acted ; and he thinks 
that bishop Moore had no authority conferred by his conse- 
cration, but what was spiritual. On being cross examined s 
the deponent says, that the power which he supposed had 
been delegated by bishop Provoost to bishop Moore, was the 
power to perform certain spiritual acts within the diocese ; 
the deponent has since understood from bishop Provoost, that 
he never had delegated any power to bishop Moore. The 
deponent thinks that the whole of the delegation from New- 
York to the general convention were present at the aforesaid 
Interview with Dr. Moore at Trenton ; he is certain that Di\ 
Beach and Mr. Hobart of the clerical, and Mr. John Reid of 
the lay deputies were present. The person herein before al« 
luded to as chided by Dr. Moore, was John Reid of Pough- 
keepsie. And further the deponent saith not. 

New-York, ss. Peter G* Stuyversant of the city of 
New-York, a witness produced on the part of the plaintiff, be- 
ing duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he is a member of 
the episcopal church in the city of New-York ; that some 
time in the month of October in the year 1811, and, as he 
believes, in the early part of the month, he had a conversa- 
tion with the Rev. Mr. Lyell, in which he told the deponent 
that the bishop had shortly before that held a convocation of 
his presbyters to decide on the case of the plamtiff under the 
32d canon ; and that the convocation had determined, that a 
separation should take place. That the vestry were to pay 
the plaintiff his salary and one thousand pounds — that after 
that determination, Mr. Harison Informed them, that their 
proceedings had been irregular — that Mr. Jones ought to have 
been summoned to appear before the convocation, and Mr. 
Lyell added, that Mr. Jones had been, or would be, summon- 
ed to appear before the convocation that would be summoned 
for the 5th of November then next, when they could make 
the same decision. The deponent understood from the afore- 
said conversation, that Mr. Lyell was one of the convocation 
who met in October aforesaid § and further the deponent saith 
not 



New-York^ ss. Samuel H ask ill, of the town of Rye, in 
the county of Westchester, a witness produced on the part 
of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that 
he was one of the members of the special convention, held in 
May 1811 ; — that in that convention it was proposed by Dr. 
R. C. Moore and Dr. Harris to postpone the election of an as- 
sistant bishop, on account of some subsisting differences be- 
tween some of the clergy of the city of New-York, and un- 
til they were adjusted ; and particularly as the person con- 
sidered as the candidate was involved in those differences ; 
the deponent cannot remember the words used in reply by 
some of the delegates from Trinity Church, but he was led 
to believe from their observations, that they considered the 
difference or controversy to be of a personal or private nature, 
and not of a kind tending to affect the interest of the church ; 
and that therefore the postponement of a choice of a bishop 
ought not to take place in consequence of those bickerings or 
differences between the clergy, and accordingly the motion 
to postpone was overruled. The deponent was not present 
at, nor had he any knowledge of, any meeting of presbyters 
previous to that which was held in November 1811, on the 
subject of the difference between Trinity Church and the 
plaintiff. At the meeting of the presbyters in November 
1811, the plaintiff made a verbal protest against their pro- 
ceeding, on account of all the presbyters of the diocese not 
having been summoned; and that there were presbyters pres- 
ent who had pre-judged the case ; and that some of the pres- 
byters were parties concerned; those were the grounds which 
the plaintiff mentioned against the proceeding of the presby- 
ters as well as the deponent can recollect. Mr. Hanson at- 
tended on behalf of Trinity Church, and addressed the meet- 
ing of the presbyters for a considerable time without inter- 
ruption. As far as the deponent recollects, the principal 
object of Mr. Harison's address appeared to the deponent to 
be to establish the point of bishop Provoost's resignation of 
the jurisdiction of the church ; and that bishop Moore was 
the diocesan. Mr. Harison then went on to state the unhappy 
differences that were in the church, produced by the publica- 
tion of the plaintiff's book, entitled "A Solemn Appeal," and 



128 

that those differences had got to such a height in the congre- 
gation or church as that there was no probability of their be- 
ing settled, so long as the plaintiff continued in Trinity 
Church, and inferred from these circumstances the necessity 
of a separation taking place between the plaintiff and Trinity 
Church. Mr. Harison said that they had nothing to object to 
Mr. Jones of immoral conduct or neglect of duty. Dr. R. C. 
Moore also delivered an address in the meeting as one of the 
presbyters, and was interrupted three times, according to the 
best of the deponent's recollection ; — on the third interrup- 
tion D. Moore broke off his address without concluding. He 
thinks that the nature of the objections made to Dr. Moore's 
address were that the address was invective and irrelevant ; 
in one instance bishop Moore interrupted Dr. Moore, as he 
thinks ; but does not remember the name of any other per- 
son who did interrupt. The deponent recollects that Mr. How 
spoke at considerable length on the subject of the differences $ 
and urged the expediency of the plaintiffs withdrawing from 
Trinity Church ; observing that he had no personal enmity 
to the plaintiff, but he was influenced by motives to further 
the interest of the church. The deponent does not recollect 
that Mr. How was interrupted ; nor of any other person being 
interrupted except Dr. Harris and Dr. Moore. The deponent 
says that he did not vote for the displacement of the plaintiff, 
but against it ; because from what passed in the convention 
in May 1811, he was of opinion that the controversy was of 
a piivate and personal nature, and that therefore it did not 
come under the particular canon on which the bishop and hia 
presbyters acted; and that if it did, that the dispute or differ- 
ence had not arisen to such a height as to preclude all hope 
of an amicable adjustment of those differences; provided 
proper means had been used to produce that adjustment. Th» 
deponent says that Dr. Moore, Dr. Harris, and Mr. Feltus 
protested against the proceeding of that meeting, and with- 
drew : and after the deliberations were closed the meeting 
was detained some time, and, as the deponent understood, un- 
til an instrument of writing was searched for in the room, and 
afterwards sent for, was brought in, and, as he believes, by 
Mr. Lyell : which paper was afterwards signed by bishop 



12:9 

Moore and a number of the presbyters ; but whether any al- 
teration or addition was made to that instrument after it was 
brought in and before it was signed, or not, he cannot say .; 
he does not recollect that there was any deliberation respect- 
ing the filling up of the blanks, but if a blank had been left 
for the sum to be allowed the plaintiff by the vestry of Trini- 
ty Church, as that sum had been previously settled by the 
meeting, it might have been written in without the deponent's 
observing it The deponent says, that since tte^ aforesaid 
meeting, in a conversation with the Rev. Elias Cooper, who 
was one of the presbyters that signed the aforesaid paper, the 
said Elias Cooper expressed a regret for the part he had taken 
at that meeting, on the ground of the proceedings having 
been hasty and more severe against the plaintiff than the na- 
ture of the case would justify ; — and further the deponent 
saith not. 

Neito-York, ss. William Hamersley, of the city of New- 
York, physician, a witness produced on the part of the plain- 
tiff, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that shortly after 
the consecration of bishop Hobart, he called with his wife at 
the deponent's house, and, at the request of bishop Hobart, 
the deponent went with him into a room apart, when he 
opened the conversation by requesting the deponent to speak 
to Mr. F. Depeyster on the impropriety of light expressions, 
Which in the judgment of bishop Hobart tended to degrade 
the episcopal office, observing at the same time, that if such 
expressions only touched his personal character, he shoulcf 
not notice them, but that he conceived himself identified with 
the episcopal church in virtue of his office, and that such 
expressions ought now to be abstained from ; to which the 
deponent answered, that he was averse to becoming a party 
in the dispute, as he thought that the vestry of Trinity 
Church was the competent authority to settle all difficulties ^ 
the deponent says that the expressions which bishop Hobart 
complained of as having been used to him personally by Mr. 
Depeyster, were— you have mounted the saddle, you have 
attained the object of your ambition, you have attained the 
highest elevation in the church ; why do you wish to crush 

k 



130 

this poor man ? — or expressions of similar import. The de- 
ponent informed Dr. Hobart that the plaintiff had called on 
him a few days before, and subsequent to his, bishop Hobart's, 
consecration, and observed to the deponent, that he presumed 
the deponent was acquainted with the unfortunate differences 
in the church, or which beset the church, and after some 
further conversation the plaintiff observed to the deponent, 
that he wished that matters could be so far settled, that he, 
the plaintiff might be assigned to St. John's Church, as that 
in which he had the most personal friends, conceiving that 
by such an arrangement the differences in the church would 
be healed ; and the deponent said to the plaintiff, the same 
thing which he said to bishop Hobart, that he the deponent 
did not wish to take any personal interest or concern in the 
dispute, as he thought the vestry of Trinity Church was the 
properly constituted authority to decide. The deponent 
stated to the plaintiff, that he regretted that the plaintiff's 
pamphlet had ever appeared ; to which the plaintiff replied 
that that was matter of opinion. The deponent also said to 
the plaintiff, that he had been present at the consecration of 
bishop Hobart, and the deponent was convinced, on account 
of the age and infirmities of the bishops, that there was a 
necessity to augment their number; to which the plaintiff 
said, that he also saw the same necessity, but that he thought, 
under all circumstances, that some other person might have 
been consecrated more to the advantage of the church ; and 
the conversation terminated by a request of Mr. Jones, that 
the deponent would speak to some of the vestry, on the sub- 
ject of assigning him, the plaintiff, to St. John's Church, and 
the deponent told the plaintiff that he would do so, and as he 
apprehends, he at the same time told the plaintiff that there 
bis interference must cease; and the deponent agreed to 
speak to Garret Van Wagenen, David M. Clarkson, and Fred- 
erick Depeyster. The deponent says that the plaintiff had 
previously spoken to Mr. Van Wagenen, and as he believes 
to Mr. Depeyter on the same subject, but whether the depo- 
nent mentioned the latter part to bishop Hobart or not, he 
does not remember. After the deponent had repeated to 
bishop Hobart the previous conversation which he the depo- 



131 

uent had had with the plaintiff as aforesaid, as nearly as he 
can recollect, bishop Hobart observed to the deponent that 
he thought the deponent had departed from the neutral ground 
he had taken in delivering the aforesaid message ; observing 
at the same time, that there could be no reason why every 
churchman should not take an interest in the controversy 
between the church and Mr. Jones, but emphatically said 
audi alteram partem ; and observed further, that so valuable 
an establishment as that of St. John's Church ought not, as 
he conceived, to be given to a man who had disturbed the 
peace of the church ; the conversation between bishop Hobart 
and the deponent ended by the deponent declaring that he 
would not take any further interest in the business, leaving 
the decision to the vestry of Trinity Church. The depo* 
nent says, that in this conversation bishop Hobart manifested 
no disposition for a reconciliation with the plaintiff, but inti- 
mated that it was his opinion, that the only way in which, 
they could be settled was that the plaintiff should quit the 
diocese ; but at the same time bishop Hobart manifested no 
personal hostility to the plaintiff. The deponent received a 
copy of Dr. Hobart's letter to the vestry of Trinity Churchy 
Which was covered in blank paper, and on the corner of 
the pamphlet was written " private ;" — who sent it to him 
he does not know, but his impression was, that it had been 
sent by Swords's, understanding from report that they were 
the printers ; after the deponent received the aforesaid pam- 
phlet, he observed that Sargeant the bookseller had advertised 
the republication of it. The deponent, on being cross ex- 
amined, says, that in all the conversations he ever had with 
bishop Hobart on the subject of the plaintiff, he always dis- 
claimed any personal hostility towards him ; and spoke of 
the plaintiff's conduct as an offence against the peace and 
order of the church, and of himself, Dr. Hobart, as personal- 
ly, out of the question. The deponent says, that in the con- 
versa tion which he had with Dr. Hobart on this subject, he 
understood him as saying, that the differences in relation to 
the plaintiff were now so great, that he thought that the cler- 
gy could no longer be associated with the plaintiff for the ad- 
vancement of the interest of the ehurch. Bishop Hobart also 



±32 

said, that he thought the offence of the plaintiff was one of 
the highest nature which he could commit against the church^ 
The deponent says, that he considered bishop Hobart, in ex- 
pressing the opinion herein before mentioned of the plaintiff's 
quitting the diocese, as! grounding himself on the eircum- 
fcances herein before last stated respecting the plaintiff. The 
deponent says, this was all the conversation he ever had 
with bishop Hobart on the subject, even after the publication 
of the plaintiff's" Solemn Appeal -" and further the deponent 
saith not. 

New-Yvrkj ss. William Harris, of the city of New- 
York, doctor of divinity, a witness produced on the part of 
the plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he 
has been settled as rector of St. Mark's church in the city of 
New-York for about eleven years lastpast,and has been a priest 
in the episcopal church since the year 1791, and president of 
Columbia College for the last two years ; — he has always 
considered bishop Provoost as the diocesan of this diocese ; 
—the deponent was a member of the general convention 
which met at Trenton in 1801 r and remembers to have heard 
in the convention that bishop Provoost had written a letter to 
the house of bishops, informing them that he had resigned. 
his office of bishop to the state convention of New-York, 
and that the house of clerical and lay deputies sent to in- 
quire of the house of bishops, whether such a letter had been 
received from bishop Provoost, who thereupon made a com- 
munication to the house of clerical and lay deputies, which 
appears upon the journals. He thinks that the house of cleri- 
cal and lay deputies acquiesced in the aforesaid communica- 
tion, and was then of opinion that it belonged exclusively to 
the house of bishops to accept or not of bishop Provoost's re- 
signation, and to prescribe the conditions upon which they 
would constitute another. The deponent says, that inde- 
pendent of the proceedings of the last state convention, he 
always was of opinion that the house of bishops had exclu- 
sively the power of deciding upon all questions relating to the 
consecration and resignation of bishops, but that from the 
arguments he then heard urged contrary to that opinion, his 



mind on that subject is now in a state of suspense. The de~ 
ponent says, that when he attended, as a member of the 
house of clerical and lay deputies, the consecration of bishop 
Moore, and signed his testimonials, he did it on the ground 
that bishop Moore was thereby made an assistant, or coadju- 
tor bishop, and he verily believes that such was the under- 
standing of the other members of that convention. The de- 
ponent was a member of the special state convention in May 
1811, when Dr. Hobart was elected, and remembers to have 
heard Mr. Harison make a motion in that body, that the 
person then to be elected bishop should on the death of bi- 
shop Moore succeed him as diocesan of the state ; upon 
which Dr. Moore observed, that that would be going farther 
than they had power to do j for that bishop Provoost was the 
diocesan, and appealed to Dr. Beacb, who was then in the 
chair, whether or not he was correct in his opinion, who de- 
cided, that he was. Mr. Haiison then changed the form of 
his motion, that the person to be elected should succeed to 
the place of bishop Moore, in case he should survive him, 
That Dr. Beach was president of the house of clerical and 
Jay deputies in 1801, when bishop Moore was consecrated, 
The deponent was one of the presbyters who met bishop 
Moore in November 1811, and Mr. Harison and Mr. King 
appeared before them as representatives of Trinity Church, 
Mr. Harison, in a speech of considerable length, endeav- 
oured to prove that bishop Provoost had resigned to the con- 
vention of the state, and that his resignation had been ac- 
cepted; and before he left the room Mr. Harison observed 
that the vestry of Trinity Church would never acknowledge 
any other diocesan than bishop Moore during his life. The 
deponent always understood that the tenure of the office of 
a minister in the epissopal church, unless otherwise specially 
provided for in the call, was during life or good behaviour* 
The deponent always considered the real parties to the con- 
troversy subsisting in the church, to be bishop Hobart, Mr, 
How, and the plaintiff — that differences existed previous to 
the publication of the plaintiff's book, called a " Solemn Ap- 
peal," and that those differences were the cause of that publi- 
cation, and from what the deponent knew of those differen- 



13£ 

ces, he is of opinion that the plaintiff had sufficient cause to 
make that publication. The deponent says, that he cannot 
say that any person ever asked him in direct terms to separate 
himself from the plaintiff, but the deponent recollects that 
shortly after the sitting of the convention in 1810, Dr. How, 
in conversation with the deponent observed, that really he, 
the deponent, was the cause of all the differences in the 
church, for that if the deponent would leave the plaintiff, he 
would be utterly abandoned, or words equally strong. The 
deponent says that he also recollects a conversation which 
he had with Dr. Hobart after the convention in 1810, and be- 
fore the publication of the " Solemn Appeal,"in which Dr. Ho- 
bart observed, that the deponent entertained erroneous opin- 
ions of him ; that the deponent had decided in favour of the 
plaintiff as the injured man, whereas he, Dr. Hobart, was 
the deeply injured man; and that the deponent did very wrong 
in listening to the plaintiff. And in another conversation 
with Dr. Hobart, he observed to the deponent, that he, the 
deponenj, was mistaken with respect to the plaintiff, that he 
had not so many friends a3 the deponent thought he had ; 
that the plaintiff stood on very ticklish ground, and that if 
he did not take care, he, Dr. Hobart, and Mr. How, would 
say to the vestry, that either they must dismiss them or the 
plaintiff; from all which conversation the deponent concluded 
that Dr. Hobart and Dr. How wished to separate the depo- 
nent from the plaintiff. The deponent has no recollection 
of any other conversation with those gentlemen on this sub- 
ject of any importance ; — that previous to the publication of 
the " Solemn Appeal," the deponent had frequently urged 
upon Dr. Hobart the propriety of a settlement of differences 
between him and the plaintiff, and that he told Dr. Hobart 
it was a very painful thing for him, the deponent, having been 
in habits of intimacy with both ; that it was not as it used to 
be; he was so averse to a reconciliation. The deponent says 
that there had been former differences between Dr. Hobart and 
the plaintiff, whicjj Dr. Hobart appeared willing to have re- 
conciled, and which were reconciled at the deponent's house. 
And the deponent says, that when urging him to a reconcilia- 
tion with the plaintiff of their present differences, the depo- 



135 

nent told Dr. Hobart that he, the deponent, was persuaded 
that he was influenced by some other person, which Dr. Ho- 
bart altogether disavowed. The deponent asked Dr. Hobart 
whether it was with his consent that the plaintiff was left out 
of the standing committee ; he said it was ; and that Dr. How 
and Mr. Lyell were for doing it in 1809, but that he had pre- 
vented it ; and not because he thought that the plaintiff ought 
not then to have been turned out, for he had no doubt of the 
justice, although he had of the policy of such measure. The 
deponent begged Dr. Hobart to consent that the bishop should 
call his clergy together, to talk over those matters ; and that 
Dr. Hobart replied, that if the bishop should send for him he 
would not attend ; for that there would be no peace as long 
as Mr. Jones was among them. The deponent says, that 
all these conversations of which he has spoken, were before 
the publication of the " Solemn Appeal," and as he believes 
shortly after the convention of 1810. The deponent says, 
that not long after the sitting of the convention in 1810, he 
was 6ent for by bishop Moore, and the deponent called on 
him in consequence ; — that bishop Moore observed, that he 
was sorry a report had got in circulation that there were dif- 
ferences among the clergy ; and that he wished very much 
that there might be a reconciliation. The deponent observed 
to bishop Moore that there would be no difficulty on the part 
of the plaintiff, for the deponent had frequently heard him 
say, that he was anxiously desirous of a reconciliation ; but 
the deponent informed the bishop that he apprehended there 
would be difficulty on the other side : and then related to the 
bishop the conversation that had recently passed between Dr. 
Hobart and the deponent as herein before stated, and parti- 
cularly that part of it, in which Dr. Hobart said, if the bi- 
shop should send for him he would not attend. Bishop Moore 
then requested the deponent to ask the plaintiff to call upon 
him, which he did. The deponent says, that he doe3 not 
know of any steps taken by bishop Moore to heal the differ- 
ences in the church : — that in all the conversations which the 
deponent has had with the plaintiff, he discovered a disposition 
for a reconciliation of existing differences. After the publica- 
tion of the " Solemn Appeal," the deponent had a conversa- 



tion with Dr. Hobart, a°oout the middle of June 1811, aa he 
thinks, in which the deponent stated to Dr. Hobart, that he 
had been handsomely supported at the election of bishops, 
that almost all the respectability of the diocese was on his 
eide ; that if he would extend the hand of reconciliation to 
the plaintiff, it would discover so much magnanimity, and 
such a christian disposition, that it would lay all opposi- 
tion at his feet; that if he would do it, the plaintiff's 
pamphlet would be considered as an electioneering trick ; 
and that the plaintiff, if he had the disposition, could never 
Have it in his power to injure him. Bishop Hobart replied, 
4hat it was folly for him to pretend that he disregarded popu- 
larity, but that he was not so fond of it as the deponent ima- 
gined — that he knew it would be a very popular act ; but that 
the deponent must remember there was a duty which he, bi- 
shop Hohart, owed to the church; and added, that the plain- 
tiff's offence had been of such a nature, that there could be 
no confidence placed in him ; that it would be necessary to 
speak freely of persons who might offer for ordination, which 
lie remarked to the deponent, he knew they had always been 
in the habit of doing; that he should think it improper, or 
unsafe, to do so any more with the plaintiff. Tbe deponent 
replied to bishop Hohart, that he differed with him in opinion, 
and that he the deponent said, that he thought that a dis- 
covery of the disposition to a reconciliation on the part of 
Dr. Hobart, would secure the gratitude of the plaintiff, and 
that he, bishop Hobart, would not have a more zealous and 
faithful clergyman in his diocese. Bishop Hobart replied, 
that he had been recently laid under the most solemn obliga- 
tions to defend the interest of the church, and acting from a 
sense of duty, he could not consent to a reconciliatton with 
the plaintiff. The deponent said, that he was very sorry, 
and that he the deponent would not presume to urge it, if 
the plaintiff had alone been in fault ; but that every impartial 
man would consider that there had been faults on both sides ; 
and that therefore not only the credit of religion, but a sense 
of justice, seemed to dictate a reconciliation, and on principles 
of mutual concession. Bishop Hobart replied, that it was 
unnecessary for the deponent to say any thing more on thst 



137 

subject—I am decided, Mr. Jones must quit. The deponeiu 
says, that in the month of October 1811, during the sitting 
of the state convention, he had another conversation with 
bishop Hobart, in company with Dr. Moore, on the subject 
of the plaintiff, in which bishop Hobart was asked, whether 
any concessions on the part of the plaintiff would satisfy him ; 
to which bishop Hobart replied, that the business was now in 
the hands of the vestry, and that of course he could do no- 
thing as it respected the request ; and on its being remarked 
by Dr. Moore, or the deponent, that if he the bishop would 
use his influence with the vestry, that it would be sufficient 
to stay proceedings against the plaintiff; to which bishop 
Hobart replied, that he had not so much interest with the 
vestry as they imagined. Bishop Hobart added, we can get 
along very well with you, gentlemen, although I think that 
you have done very wrong, and you think that I have done 
wrong, but we cannot with Mr, Jones. The deponent says, 
he received a letter dated 24th February 1812, from the Rev. 
Bethell Judd, a copy of which is hereunto annexed, which 
letter was received shortly after its date. The deponent says, 
that he communicated the contents of the aforesaid letter to 
Dr. Moore and Mr. Jones, and obtained their consent to re- 
turn an answer to the following effect — thanking Mr. Judd 
and those for whom he acted, for the charitable offer of a me- 
diation,, and presuming that they were impartial men, and 
had the interest of religion and the church at heart, that he 
the deponent, Dr. Moore and Mr. Jones, would eheerfully 
submit all matters in difference to their decision. The depo- 
nent says, that not having it in his power to refer to a copy 
of his letter to Mr. Judd, he speaks of its contents from his 
memory. The deponent says, that to the aforesaid letter., 
which he wrote to Mr. Judd, he received an answer from Mr. 
Judd, dated 5th March 1812, a copy of which is hereunto 
annexed. The deponent says, that some time after the date 
of the last aforesaid letter, he happened to meet the late bi^ 
chop Jarvis at New-Haven, who shewed to him a letter which 
he understood was a circular from Dr. Hobart to the, clergy 
of Connecticut^ part of which letter the deponent heard read., 
and it blamed the clergy of Connecticut for their interference 



138 

in the case of Mr. Jones, and stated that the clergy of New- 
York had not interfered in the case of Mr. Amy Rogers, 
which happened in Connecticut, and therefore it was unrea- 
sonable that they, the Connecticut clergy, should interfere 
in the case of Mr. Jones. The deponent says, that he pre- 
sumes, that this is one of the reasons why the clergy of Con- 
necticut did not proceed with their mediation : but does not 
remember that he heard this assigned as a reason by any of 
the Connecticut clergy. The deponent says, that he under- 
stood from bishop Jarvis, that some of the clergy were offend- 
ed at the letter — the part of the letter which the deponent 
heard read, contained nothing improper or disrespectful. 
The deponent did not hear bishop Jarvis express any o 
pinion respecting the aforesaid letter. The deponent, on be 
ing asked how it came to pass that he the deponent was in- 
duced to give Dr. Hobart the certificates published in his let 
ter to the vestry of Trinity Church, replied, that he thought 
it an act of justice to do so. The deponent says, that some 
time in June 1811, at the request of the plaintiff, he called on 
bishop Moore, to state to him the plaintiff's willingness to be 
reconciled, and that the rubric did not permit those who were 
unwilling to be reconciled to partake of the communion,but that 
the plaintiff was willing and desirous of a reconciliation. Bi- 
shop Moore then said, that many persons had called on him. 
who said that they would feel hurt at seeing Mr. Jones offi- 
ciate at the communion, and he therefore thought it his 
duty to enjoin or request that Mr. Jones should not attend for 
ihat purpose. The deponent says, that about the time last 
aforesaid, bishop Moore exhibited to the deponent a list of the 
clergy, who at a meeting of the special convention in May 
preceding, had recommended that measures should be taken 
for the separation of the plaintiff from Trinity Church. The 
deponent recollects to have seen, the names of Mr. How, Mr. 
Bowen, and Mr. Nash, and as he believes, Mr. Phelps, to 
that paper; and there were in all about a dozen names, but 
he does not remember any others. 

The deponent says, that sometime in September 1311. 
and as he believes, about the 11th, he was sent for by bishop 
Moore, for the purpose of inducing him, the deponent, to 



13.9 

persuade the plaintiff to quit his connection with Trinity 
Church; and he said, that if the plaintiff would do so, he had 
no doubt but that the vestry would do something very hand- 
some for him, and he would use his influence in order that 
they should, and said that it was impossible that the plaintiff 
could be any longer useful here ; that he could go to Virginia, 
and might be useful in the church there ; that he had no re- 
lations here, and there he would be among the relations of 
bis wife. The deponent replied to bishop Moore, that he 
was authorized to say for the plaintiff, that he was ready to 
pay a respectful attention to any honorable terms that the 
vestry of Trinity Church had to propose to him, but that he 
would not consent to any conditions that would leave a stig- 
ma on his character. The bishop then asked deponent if he 
did not think it best for Mr. Jones to go, and the deponent 
answered, that if the terms offered by Trinity Church should 
meet Mr. Jones's acceptance, that then, the deponent thought, 
he would prefer going to remaining in Trinity Church under 
existing circumstances. Bishop Moore then took up a pam- 
phlet which was marked, and said that Mr. Jones had charg- 
ed Dr. Hobart with swindling, to which deponent replied, 
that he did not think Mr. Jones had any such intention ; and 
that the deponent had understood that Mr. Jones had the 
statement which he had made from Mr. Swords. Bishop 
Moore made some other remarks on the pamphlet, which the 
deponent cannot recollect ; but which he did not think very 
material at that time. Bishop Moore then asked deponent, 
whether he did not think that Trinity Church could exhibit a 
complaint against the plaintiff under the 32d cannon, which 
he then showed the deponent, and the deponent gave it as 
his opinion, that they could not. The conversation then 
terminated upon bishop Moore's again urging the deponent 
to prevail on the plaintiff to quit; saying, that if he would, 
the vestry would do something handsome for him. The de- 
ponent says, that he was not summoned or invited to any 
other meeting of the bishop and his presbyters, excepting 
that of November 1811, but the deponent heard that there 
Jiad been a previous meeting ; he heard it from Mr. Jones, and 
afterwards from a witness who had been examined in this 



140 

cause, but he heard it from the plaintiff, some short time af- 
ter the meeting of the 5th November* At the meeting of 
the 5th November, 1811, the plaintiff objected to the pro- 
ceedings of that meeting, on account of some of the presby- 
ters present being parties concerned ; and on account of some 
presbyters not being summoned ; and because some present 
had either prejudged the cause, or recommended his removal. 
The only ground of complaint exhibited against the plaintiff 
at the meeting of the 5th November 1811, was his publish- 
ing the " Solemn Appeal," and every other kind of charge 
disclaimed. The deponent says, that he considers presbyter 
and priest as synonymous in the episcopal church. The de- 
ponent says, that he recollects that Dr. Moore was inter- 
rupted two or three times while delivering his address at the 
meeting in November 1811. Bishop Moore once interrupted 
him, and said, he speaks against the bishop ; and he thinks 
Mr. Bowen once interrupted him, but is not sure. Dr. Moore, 
after being three times interrupted, stopt, and Mr. How 
begged he would proceed, otherwise he would say that he 
was prevented ; but Dr. Moore said, No, I have prepared 
this address with care to avoid saying what was not proper, 
and as I am so frequently interrupted I will not proceed. 
The deponent says, that from the manner in which Dr. 
Moore's address was received, he would not have proceeded, 
if he had been in Dr. Moore's situation. The deponent says, 
that several of the members of the meeting were speaking, 
either together, or so soon after each other, that it is impossi- 
ble for him to remember what was said. The deponent says, 
that a paper, signed by a number of the clergy, and by the 
deponent, as one of them, implicating Mr. Feltus, which is 
published in Dr. Hobart's pamphlet, was published without 
his knowledge or consent ; that paper was brought to the de- 
ponent for his signature by Mr. Berrian, before he was in 
orders; the deponent hesitated about signing it, and Mr. 
Berrian said, that the other clergy had signed it without 
making any difficutly, and added, that deponent was afraid ; 
to which deponent replied, that Ave ought always to be afraid 
of doing wrong. The deponent however concluded to sign the 
paper, and did sign it ; and as he thinks, wrote a note to Dr. 






1*1 

Hobart explaining the principle on which he did it. The depo- 
nent signed it, relying that Dr. Hobart could prove the facts 
therein stated, the deponent not having any knowledge of 
these facts ; soon after, and as the deponent thinks, the very 
next day, he went to bishop Moore, and stated to him, that 
he, the deponent, thought on reflection that he had done 
wrong in signing that paper ; that the facts stated in it might 
be true, but they were not so within the deponent's own 
knowledge ; and he therefore requested that his name might 
be taken off. Bishop Moore observed, that Dr. Beach had 
just been with him and made a similar request, and that the 
deponent need give himself no concern, for that no use what- 
ever would be made of the paper. 

The deponent, on being cross examined, says, that previ- 
ous to the fall of 1808, he was in habits of very strict intima- 
cy with Dr. Hobart, and previous to that time he always 
spoke of the plaintiff as a faithful zealous clergyman ; and that 
his foibles ought not to be mentioned in comparison with his 
many excellent qualities ; and the deponent does not recol- 
lect that Dr. Hobart, previous to that time, ever did any 
thing to excite unfavourable impressions in the mind of the 
deponent against the plaintiff. .Previous to 1808, he thinks 
that Dr. Hobart took pains to prevent the feelings of the 
plaintiff from being hurt, by the manner of conducting the 
affairs of the church. The deponent has had frequent con- 
versations with Dr. Hobart, but when particularly he does not 
know, in which Dr. Hobart said, that he had often yielded 
to Mr. Jones precedence, which he was not entitled to, for 
the sake of preserving peace ; he has heard Dr. Hobart say, 
that he thought it a matter of little consequence, and has 
heard Mr. Jones say the same thing. Dr. Hobart was called 
to Trinity Church before Mr. Jones. The deponent has 
heard bishop Moore and Dr. Bowden say, that they thought 
that Dr. Hobart had gone too far in yielding to Mr. Jones 
what he was not entitled to ; and he heard bishop Moore say, 
in the fall of 1808, that he was afraid Mr. Jones was influ- 
enced by improper motives, that he was envious of Dr. Ho- 
bart, and wished to prevent his rising in the church, but that 
it would be in vaiiic The deponent says, that he has here- 



1*2 

tofore said, and subsequent to the reconciliation that took 
place between Br. Hobart and Mr. Jones at his house in 1308, 
that in his opinion Dr. Hobart had acted a christian part, 
and shewed great forbearance towards Mr. Jones ; and he has 
also said, that he had the same opinion of the conduct of Mr. 
Jones on that accasion. The deponent has expressed to 
bishop Hobart his commendation of the forbearance which lie 
exercised towards Mr. Jones. Previous to the fall of 1808, 
he thinks that he has heard Mr. Jones say, that he thought 
Dr. Hobart was rather too assuming ; but the deponent did 
not think at that time that Mr. Jones wished to injure Dr, 
Hobart in the opinion of the deponent. In a conversation 
between the deponent and Dr. R. C. Moore and Mr. Jones, 
previous to the convention of 1808, Dr. Moore said, that Mr. 
Lyell had said, that he did not see any reason why Dr. Hobart 
should be secretary forever, but that there was no plan formed 
to turn out Dr. Hobart ; and that just before the meeting of that 
convention, Dr. Hobart told deponent that he understood there 
was such a plan, and that if there was, and he was informed 
of it, he would resign ; to which deponent replied, that he 
knew nothing of any such plan, but that he would make en- 
quiry, and that he did in consequence speak to the plaintiff 
on the subject ; who said, that he would vote as he thought 
proper, but that he had not, and would not speak to any other 
to influence their vote. The deponent did not understand 
from what passed in the aforesaid conversation with Dr. 
Moore, that Mr. Lyell was concerned in any plan to turn Dr. 
Hobart out of the office of secretary of the convention. The 
deponent immediately communicated to Dr, Hobart the sub- 
stance of what passed between deponent and plaintiff, and 
Dr. Hobart appeared to be satisfied that there was no such 
plan as he had supposed. The deponent understood from the 
plaintiff that he had voted against Dr. Hobart on that occa- 
sion, and he thinks there was one other member that did, but 
is not certain. The deponent says, that he was at the con- 
vention which met at Poughkeepsie in 1805, and arrived 
shortly before it adjourned; he left this in a sloop with the 
plaintiff and several other members of the convention, who 
ail except the deponent and a Mr. Gibbon left the sloop &t 



143 

West-Point, and as the deponent understood, proceeded by 
land to Poughkeepsie, where they arrived before the opening 
of the convention. The deponent says, that during the time 
the plaintiff was on board the sloop with the deponent he 
did not hear the plaintiff urge on any of the members of the 
convention to leave Dr. Hobart out of the office of Secretary ; 
nor does he remember any conversation respecting Dr. Ho^ 
bart. The deponent has often heard Dr. Hobart express his 
regret at discovering the opposition of the plaintiff towards 
him. Shortly before the reconciliation between Dr. Hobart 
and the plaintiff at the deponent's house, he, at Dr. Hobart's 
request, informed the plaintiff that Dr. Hobart wished for a 
reconciliation ; the plaintiff said, he would not consent to a 
reconciliation until he had laid a written statement which he 
had drawn up before the bishop, unless he could have assu- 
rance that he would not be insulted, or ill treated again by Dr. 
Hobart; and does not recollect what the insults or ill treat- 
ment were, of which the plaintiff complained ; he has no 
recollection of any subjects of complaint on the part of the 
plaintiff previous to that time, except that which related to 
what took place at the funeral of Mr. Walton, or what re- 
lated to Gen. Hamilton's funeral, and the ordination of Mr. 
Gillet. The plaintiff read the statement before mentioned 
to deponent shortly before the conversation last referred to 
by him, and it contained the complaints last mentioned. The 
deponent communicated to Dr. Hobart what had passed be- 
tween him and the plaintiff as last stated, and Dr. Hobart, 
observed that it never would do for the plaintiff and him to 
talk over what had passed, but that every thing should be 
buried in oblivion ; that he hoped that the plaintiff would not 
lay his statement before the bishop, as it would be giving 
more importance to the matter than belonged to it, lead to 
recrimination, would be giving it a publicity, and thereby be 
injurious to the church. Dr. Hobart added, that if he was 
desirous ot injuring the plaintiff, he should wish the matter 
laid before the bishop, as he had something to shew in black 
and white, that the plaintiff was not friendly to him ; that the 
plaintiff had written something to his disadvantage; Dr. Hobart 
at the same time informed the deponent, that he wished him 



144 

to tell the plaintiff, that if he had any wish to lay the matter 
before the bishop, he must not be prevented from doing so, by 
any attempt at reconciliation made by him. He does not re- 
collect whether he communicated this to the plaintiff or not, 
as he was very desirous of a reconciliation, but he well re- 
members, that he approved of Dr. Hobart's plan of a recon- 
ciliation, in preference to the plaintiff's laying his statement 
before the bishop ; and that he expressed this opinion to both 
parties. Dr. Hobart has in conversation at different times 
with the deponent, one not long after the convention of 1810, 
and the other he thinks previous to that time, told the depo- 
nent, that it was his wish to retire from the city on account 
of the differences which he knew T would arise with the plain- 
tiff; and on one occasion said that he was taking measures 
for that purpose, and that it would soon appear that he was 
not the ambitious man that he was thought to be. The de- 
ponent says, that both the letters from Mr. Judd, herein be- 
fore referred to, were written and received after the plaintiff 
had been separated from Trinity Church by bishop Moore 
and his presbyters, and suspended by them from the exercise* 
of his ministerial functions. He says, that it is usual for the 
clergy to meet at the bishop's in convocation the day pre- 
ceding the sitting of convention. He has heard Dr. Beach 
express an opinion, or wish, that the clergy should not ex- 
change with Dr. R. C. Moore, on account of his irregularity, 
and the deponent observed, that if Dr. Moore was found to 
be living in breach of a canon he ought to be called to an ac- 
count for it. The deponent says, that he did entertain and 
express an opinion, that Dr. Moore was living in the breach 
of the canon of the church, which requires the use of the 
book of common prayer before all sermons and lectures; and 
the deponent declined exchanging with Dr. Moore on ac- 
count of the irregularity aforesaid ; he does not remember, 
that Dr. Moore asked him to exchange, but he has no doubt 
Dr. Moore knew that was his determination. The deponent 
says, that he informed the plaintiff, that if he exchanged with 
Dr. 4 Moore, the deponent should be obliged to break off inter- 
course with him : — that when Dr. Moore was interrupted in 
his delivering his address to bishop Moore and his presbyters 



145 

it was observed, that that meeting was to decide on the ques- 
tion of the separation of the plaintiff from Trinity Church, 
and that the discussion of the matters stated in the " Solemn 
Appeal" was irrelevant and out of order, and that was the 
reason given for interrupting him. The deponent, on being 
again examined on the part of the plaintiff, says, that Mr. 
Jones very frequently in conversation with the deponent ex- 
pressed his regret at the differences that subsisted between 
Dr. Hobart and him, and his wish that they were reconciled, 
and that during the first part of their connection in Trinity 
Church he had lived with him as a brother, and that he could 
not have loved a brother better. The deponent says, that 
the facts stated in the " Solemn Appeal," so far as they re- 
late to the deponent, are truly stated ; the deponent says, that 
the reconciliation herein before stated by him to have taken 
place between the plaintiff and Dr. Hobart, took place at the 
time, and comprehended the subjects, and was of the nature 
mentioned in the certificate given by the deponent and pub- 
lished in the " Solemn Appeal." The deponent says, that 
he informed the plaintiff that if he became reconciled with 
Dr. Hobart, he would not have any future ground of complaint 
against him, but whether this was said from the deponent's 
inference from what was said by Dr. Hobart, or Dr. Hobart 
expressly authorizing it to be said, he cannot remember ; in the 
conversations preceding the reconciliation, Dr. Hobart re- 
marked, that the plaintiff had the advantage of him, being 
more cool and dispassionate ; after the reconciliation, the de- 
ponent remarked to the plaintiff, that he thought that he had 
acted a christian part. 

The deponent, on being again cross examined, says, that 
in all the conversations he ever had with Dr. Hobart on the 
subject of the differences with the plaintiff, he always repre- 
sented himself as the injured party, and declared that he 
never had willingly injured the plaintiff; that he never heard 
Dr. Hobart admit, that the plaintiff had just cause of com- 
plaint against him ; but always expressed himself desirous of 
a reconciliation, previous to the reconciliation which took 
place at the deponent's house, as the consequences of con- 
tinuing the dispute would be unpleasant 



±§6 

The deponent being again examined on the part of the 
plaintiff, says, that he does not know of any instance, in 
which the plaintiff has violated the stipulations of the recon- 
ciliation with Dr. Hobart made in 1809, but he thinks that the 
objection of Dr. Hobart to the plaintiff's exchanging with 
Dr. R. C. Moore, after bishop Moore had sanctioned such 
exchange, and the part Dr. Hobart took in turning the plain- 
tiff out of the standing committee of the state convention, 
was in violation of the spirit of that reconciliation f the depo- 
nent has no recollection of any notice having been sent to 
him to meet a convocation immediately preceding the con- 
vention in October 1811, he did not attend such convocation, 
and he thinks if he had received such notice that he would 
have attended ; the notice to attend the convocation which is 
usually held the evening before the convention, is generally no- 
ted in writing at the bottom of the notice of the meeting of the 
convention ; the deponent attended the convention in Octo- 
ber 1811, when deponent, in conversation with Dr. Beach, 
Dr. Hobart and others, proposed to call Dr. Moore before the 
authority of the church, if he was in the habit of breaking 
one of the canons ; Dr. Hobart observed that he should op- 
pose that, as it would be doing what Dr. Moore wanted, and 
give him an opportunity of raising the cry of persecution. 
The deponent was induced to make the aforesaid proposition, 
because he did not think that it was correct for individual 
clergymen to accuse Dr. Moore of breaking a canon, and to 
geek to enforce it by refusing intercourse with him ; the de- 
ponent, however, afterwards yielded to this course, and un- 
derstood that the plaintiff did, in order to avoid being accused 
of upholding Dr. Moore in irregularities. 

The deponent, on being again cross examined, 6ays, that 
lie does not think that he would have attended the conven- 
tion in October 1811, without he had received either a writ- 
ten, or a verbal notice to attend. It is the uniform practice 
for the clergy to meet in convocation at the bishop's the 
evening preceding the meeting of the convention, and has 
been so ever since he has been in the city of New-York ; and 
knowing that there was to be a convention in October 1811, 
lie must necessarily have supposed that there was a previous 



1*7 

convocation. The deponent says, that when he informed 
the plaintiff as before stated, that unless he, the plaintiff, de- 
sisted from exchanging with Dr. Moore, the deponent would 
not exchange with him, he did so because he thought the 
plaintiff was doing wrong in making such exchange; when 
Dr. Beach proposed that none of the clergy should have any 
intercourse with Dr. Moore as herein before stated, Dr. Ho- 
bart objected and said, that he thought every clergyman 
should be allowed to act as he saw fit. The deponent, on 
being again examined on the part of the plaintiff, says, that 
he would not have attended the meeting of the convocation 
preceding the convention in 1811, unless notified, under the 
peculiar circumstances that then existed, and further he saitfa 
not. 

Copy of a letter from the Rev. B. Judd to the Rev. Wm. Harris. 
D. D-. President of Columbia College, New-York. 

Nonvalk, February 24th, 1812. 
Rev. and dear sir, 

I take the liberty to inform you, that at a convocation 
held at New-Haven, on Wednesday last, the clergy of this 
state, deeply feeling the unhappy situation of the church in 
New-York, appointed several of their brethren to visit that 
diocese, and in the spirit of meekness to exhort them to lay 
down their weapons, and to seek for peace. We all sympa- 
thise with them in their affliction, and believing, that when one 
member suffers, all the members must suffer with it — think it 
our duty to beseech them for the honor and safety of the church, 
to be reconciled to each othero We do not presume to dictate 
to our brethren, but rather in love to entreat them to termi- 
nate the unhappy controversy in which they have been en- 
gaged. With this disposition, several of the clergy of this 
state will take the liberty to wait on their brethren in New- 
York, on Thursday the 12th day of March next, on this 
painful but important duty. 

Your's affectionately, 

(Signed) B. JUDD. 



148 

Copy of a letter from the Rev. B. Juddto the Rev. Win. Harris^ 

D. D. President of Columbia College, New-York. 

Noiwalk, March 5th, 1812. 
Rev. and dear sir, 

Your's of the 29th of last month has been received 
with that pleasure which I had every reason to anticipate, 
and I have the honor to inform you, sir, that on account of 
some information which the committee appointed to visit 
New-York have received, that overtures for reconciliation 
with Trinity Church are about to be made by Mr. Jones, 
their proposed visit is postponed for the present. 
Your affectionate 

Brother in Christ, 

(Signed) B. JUDD. 

New-York. ss. The Rev. Henry I. Feltus, a witness on 
the part of the plaintiff, being examined by consent of the 
parties in this cause, deposeth, that he has always consider- 
ed bishop Provoost as the diocesan bishop of this state, and 
founded that opinion on the circumstances that took place at 
the time of bishop Moore's consecration, and the resolution 
of the house of bishops as stated in their minutes. Witness 
was not a member of the convention, but was in orders and 
heard of their proceedings at the time. Conceives the house 
of bishops to be the supreme authority for determining ques- 
tions of this nature. Was a member of the special conven- 
tion in May 1811, and supposed the question, as to who was 
the diocesan, was there conceded and acted upon, when Dr. 
Hobart was elected. Mr. Harison then drew up a resolution 
that the person to be chosen bishop should succeed as dioce- 
san on the event of bishop Moore^s death. Witness mention- 
ed to Dr. R. C. Moore, who sat next him, that it could not 
be, aslrishop Provoost was the diocesan, and that this fact 
was upon the minutes of the general convention, in which 
bishop Moore was consecrated. Upon whieh Dr. Moore made 
the suggestion publicly, and appealed to the chair. Dr.Beach 
was in the chair, and agreed that such was the fact. Upon 
which Mr. Harison modified his resolution to the form in 
which it now stands, to get clear of the objection* The 



149 

point was not otherwise conceded or acted upon by the con- 
vention. Considers the subsisting controversy in Trinity 
Church, to be between Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones alone — it 
existed before Mr. How came into Trinity Church, and he 
arrayed himself on the side of Dr. Hobart. The witness 
never saw that part of the " Solemn Appeal," written by Mr. 
Jones, nor heard it read, till it was in print ; but from what 
he has since learned from Dr. Harris and others, he thinks 
Mr. Jones had no alternative but to publish it. The account 
contained in the " Solemn Appeal," as far as concerns the 
witness, is in substance and circumstances correct. Depo- 
nent was not present at, and had no knowledge of any meet- 
ing of presbyters convened on the subject of Mr. Jones's 
case, before that of the 5th of November 1811. Witness had 
a notice to attend a meeting of the convention in October 
1811 ; but no notice subjoined to it, as is usually done, to at- 
tend a convocation the evening before at the bishop's, and 
did not suppose that there was a convocation or meeting of the 
presbyters at the bishop's that evening, because he received no 
notice. At the meeting of the presbyters on the 5 th of Nov. 
1811, Mr. King expressly said, there was no charge against 
Mr. Jones's moral character or non-performance of duty, but 
said a separation was wished for on account of differences 
existing in the church, which there was no hope of bringing 
to an amicable conclusion. Remembers the plaintiff at that 
meeting entered a verbal protest against the validity of the 
proceedings, because some of the presbyters were not sum- 
moned to that meeting ; and looking round, he observed that 
some present were parties to the controversy. Witness re- 
collects that Dr. R. C. Moore was interrupted. three or four 
times in delivering an address at that meeting, on the ground 
of irrelevancy. Mr. Lyell, in one interruption, said, this 
was not the point to come before them ; that had been fixed — 
then turning to Dr. Moore, he said, but you were not there. 
The witness from that, and seeing the papers ready drawn 
up, concluded that there had been a previous meeting, of 
which he had not heard. Mr. How was at least as active as 
any other person there. Did not think the state of bishop 
Moore's health at that meeting was such as rendered him 



150 

competent to the conducting of such a business ; he appeared 
a sick man, and affected both in his body and mind; twice 
he appeared very much agitated. Mr. Phelps intreated him 
to withdraw, and tried to lead him from the room, as he pre- 
sumes, until the bishop should recover himself. Witness sup- 
poses the meeting lasted three or four hours. The witness 
knows of no other instance in which bishop Moore discharged 
the duties of the episcopal office, since his being attacked 
with his indisposition previous to the special convention in 
May 1811. 

Being cross examined, witness says, he thinks a bishop 
should resign his connection with his diocese to the house 
of bishops, and to no other body. Bishop Moore has exer- 
cised all the efficient power of bishop in the diocese, since 
his election, but witness snpposed it was by sufferance from 
bishop Provoost, Witness does not know, but has heard, 
there were prejudices excited in the congregation of Trinity 
Church and its chapels, by the publication of the " Solemn 
Appeal," which induced some persons to withdraw from 
church when Mr. Jones preached, and some when Dr. Hobart 
and Mr. How preached. 

We consent that this deposition shall be used before the arbitrators as if 
regularly taken, but saving all just exceptions as to its contents. 

(Signed) THOS. ADDIS EMMET, for pit, 

(Signed) T. L. OODEN, for T. Church. 

New-York, ss« Richard Channing Moore, of the city 
of New- York, doctor of divinity, a witness produced on the 
part of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, 
that he has been an episcopal clergyman within the diocese 
of New-York for twenty-six years last past, and he has always 
considered bishop Provoost as the diocesan since his conse- 
cration, but did not suppose that he would have acted after 
the consecration of bishop Moore as a coadjutor bishop; 
but the deponent always thought that bishop Provoost had the 
right of acting under the minutes of the house of bishops, 
but he does not know the precise time when he became ac= 
quainted with those minutes. In the interval between the 
consecration of bishop Moore, and the time the deponent 
fir§t saw th?. aforesaid minutes, he thinks, but is no£ quite 



151 

certain, that he considered bishop Moore as the diocesan. 
The deponent always considered the acts of bishop Moore as 
valid, unless controlled by bishop Provoost. According to 
the constitution of the episcopal church in this country, the 
house of bishops is, in the opinion of the deponent, the para- 
mount authority in admitting bishops to their office, and he 
thinks the power rests entirely with them to accept or refuse 
the resignation of bishops. The deponent has always, since 
he first saw the minutes of the house of bishops appointing 
bishop Moore, considered him only as coadjutor bishop, and 
he has frequently expressed this opinion to other episcopal 
clergymen, and has never heard it controverted; — but 
the deponent never thought that bishop Provoost would 
have acted after the appointment of bishop Moore, though 
he considered him as having the right to do so if he thought 
lit. The deponent says, that a few days before the meeting 
of the presbyters respecting the business of the plaintiff, he 
had a conversation with the Rev. Mr. Bowen on the subject 
at the deponent's house, and the deponent informed him that 
bishop Provoost would act in that matter as bishop, which 
Mr. Bowen seemed to doubt ; and upon the deponent asking 
the said Mr. Bowen if Dr. Moore was not a coadjutor bishop, 
he said undoubtedly he was, or some equivalent expression. 
The deponent says, that he was a member of a special con- 
vention of the episcopal church of this state, which met in 
May 1811, and recollects a motion made by Mr. Richard 
Harison, that the convention should proceed to the election 
of an assistant bishop, and also another resolution, moved by 
the same gentleman, that the person then to be elected, in 
case he should survive bishop Moore, should be the diocesan 
— upon which the deponent objected, that it could not be, as 
bishop Provoost was the diocesan, and appealed to Dr. Beach, 
the president of the convention, to be corrected, if he, the 
deponent, was in error ; and Dr. Beach replied that the depo- 
nent was correct ; — that then Mr. Harison modified the resolu- 
tion and made it to state that the person to be elected should, 
after the death of bishop Moore, succeed to his place ; which 
modification was made, as the deponent believes, to obviate 
the objection, and not intended to commit those who might 



152 

differ with this deponent on the subject of the diocesan. The 
deponent was at the meeting of bishop Moore and the pres- 
byters on the 5 th November 1811, and he remembers that in 
an address of Mr. Richard Harison, he said that he did not 
believe that Trinity Church would ever acknowledge any- 
other diocesan than bishop Moore, as long as he lived ; that 
Mr. Harison and Mr. King appeared as a committee on the 
part of Trinity Church, before bishop Moore and the pres- 
byters, to produce charges against the plaintiff; that Mr. Hari- 
son having occasion to go out for some papers, the deponent 
enquired of bishop Moore, whether the lay gentlemen came 
there to plead against the plaintiff, or only to produce their 
complaint ; upon which Mr. King came up to the deponent, 
and said, that their intention was only to produce their com- 
plaint, and then to retire. Mr. Harison, however, having 
returned, made a long address, as the deponent thinks, for 
an hour, or an hour and an half, in order to show, that by 
the church government, the convention of this state were the 
only judges who was the diocesan. Mr. Harison stated that 
Trinity Church made no charge against the plaintiff for im- 
moral conduct or neglect of duty ; and he was very tender of 
the plaintiff's reputation ; — the only ground of complaint was 
the plaintiff's book entitled, " A Solemn Appeal," which he 
3aid had produced confusion in the church. The deponent 
says, that he had a conversation with bishop Hobart shortly 
after his consecration, in which conversation the deponent 
introduced the subject of the plaintiff, and pleaded Avith him for 
an amicable adjustment of all differences ; that bishop Hobart 
adverted to the confusion that had existed among the clergy, 
and said that he could get along with all but the plaintiff, and 
mentioned particularly that he could get along with Mr. Fel- 
tus and the deponent — and said, " how can I get along," or 
" how can I have any confidence with or in a man who takes 
" notes of private conversations,"— and a good deal passed to 
the same purpose. The deponent says, that in October 1811, 
during the sitting of the convention, he had another conver- 
sation with bishop Hobart, in company with Dr. Harris, in 
Trinity Church; and Dr. Harris and the deponent suggested 
to bishop Hobart the good effects that would arise to the 



155 

church by a settlement of all differences with the plaintiff; 
upon which bishop Hobart said, that he had now nothing to 
do with it — the vestry had taken it up ; and the deponent and 
Dr. Harris thereupon remarked to bishop Hobart, that in their 
opinion his influence with the vestry was such, that if he 
would interfere, the matter would be adjusted ; but he does 
not know whether bishop Hobart repeated the remark, " the 
business was now with the vestry, and that he had nothing 
to do with it." The deponent says, that on the day of the 
election of Dr. Hobart, and immediately after, he, the depo- 
nent, went up towards bishop Hobart, who at first appeared 
to the deponent determined not to speak, and to be turning 
away from him ; but immediately turned towards the depo- 
nent, and said, " I will not turn away from you," and there- 
upon bishop Hobart and the deponent gave each other the 
hand, standing without the railings of the altar ; the deponent 
then observed, that as the business was settled, he hoped that 
they would all (meaning to include the plaintiff) live in peace 
and love ; and suggested the propriety of bishop Hobart's not 
answering or taking any farther notice of the plaintiff's book — * 
and that thereupon bishop Hobart remarked, that he had 
many friends in different parts of the United States, into 
whose hands Mr. Jones's pamphlet must have come, and that 
he owed it to his own character to give them some explana- 
tion ; otherwise they would suppose the charges in the book 
to be true ; but he said he should do nothing to hurt Jones; — 
the deponent said he was rejoiced to hear it ; — the deponent 
understood that bishop Hobart would write a statement and 
send to his friends. Bishop Hobart observed, that he would 
not be influenced by any thing that had passed, and added, ., 
" we shall get along very well together." The deponent says, 
that he was sent for by bishop Moore in the month of Sept. 
before the meeting of the bishop and presbyters ; and the 
deponent went to Greenwich to see him in consequence ; and 
on going into his room, after the customary salutations, bishop 
Moore took up the plaintiff's book, in which he had several 
places marked down, and he observed, that the plaintiff had 
made several charges against Dr. Hobart, one of which, he 
said, looks something like charging him with swindling. The 



154* 

deponent asked which that was, and bishop Moore replied 1 , 
that which charged him with appropriating monies intended 
for the publication of religious tracts to other purposes. The 
deponent said, that he did not think any person could have 
such an idea either of the publication or of Dr. Hobart's con- 
duct ; that it only implied, that he had taken the liberty of 
appropriating the money in a way different from what was in- 
tended* but by no means implying dishonesty. Bishop Moore 
then saidj that he wished the deponent to advise the plaintiff 
to resign his office of assistant minister, and quit the city, 
and all things would bo made agreeable to him the deponent. 
The deponent asked bishop Moore where he would wish the 
plaintiff to go, and he said let him go to Virginia* he can be 
useful to the church there. Deponent then said—" what, sir. 
" quit his native city and go to Virginia—what would he do 
" there* sir?" Bishop Moore replied, that the plaintiff had 
no connexions here, and that his wife's friends were in Vir- 
ginia. The deponent asked how the plaintiff would dare to 
look Mrs. Jones's relations in the face, banished from his na- 
tive city ; to which bishop Moore replied, that the plaintiff 
could saj r , that disturbances had arisen in the church in New- 
York, and that he had quit it in order to get rid of them. 
Deponent then told bishop Moore that he would advise the 
plaintiff to stand his ground, and that if bishop Moore's bro- 
ther was in the same situation, the deponent would give him 
the same counsel. The bishop then remarked, that the depo- 
nent was very selfish. Deponent said, that the plaintiff had 
always treated him well since he came to the city, and that 
it was his, the deponent's, duty to be his friend ; — the conver- 
sation then became desultory until the deponent got up to go, 
when the bishop remarked, that deponent had better let Mr. 
Jones go, and added, " we shall have no rest here while that 
" nest-egg remains." In the course of the conversation bishop 
Moore remarked, that he was not authorized to say the 
vestry would, but that considering their liberality, he had no 
doubt but. that they would do something handsome or gener- 
ous for the plaintiff if he would go. This observation was 
repeated several times ; and he also said, that the clergy had 
lately discovered traits of generosity in the character of the 



155 

deponent, which had produced an alteration in their opin 
ion concerning him, and that things would be made agree- 
•able to the deponent. The deponent says, that the view 
which he had of the preceding conversation was, that if he 
had persuaded the plaintiff to go away, that it would be of ad- 
vantage to him the deponent. The deponent says, that in 
consequence of the preceding interview with bishop Moore, 
he wrote him a tetter dated 13th September 1811, and re- 
ceived an answer from bishop Moore dated 14th September, 
to which the deponent replied, as he believes, the same day ; 
• — that copies of these communications he now produces, and 
hands over as part of his testimony in this case. The depo- 
nent says, that he is well convinced that he did not fall into 
the mistake supposed by bishop Moore in his letter, but that 
the bishop did use the expressions mentioned by this depo- 
nent in his examination. The deponent says, that prior to 
the conversation with bishop Moore before mentioned, he had 
suffered severely by a paralytic stroke, which had more or 
less impaired the powers of his mind; and the deponent 
thought, and has so expressed himself, that his brethren had 
imposed a duty on bishop Moore, on the 5 th November 1811, 
which the debilitated state of his mind and body would not 
justify, and this was so obvious at the meeting of the pres- 
byters, that some one of the members advised him to with- 
draw. The deponent says, that he was not present at any 
meeting of the bishop and presbyters, previous to the 5th 
November, but he thinks he did hear that there had been 
such a meeting. The deponent had no notice to attend any 
prior meeting ; — he thinks he heard accidentally of such meet- 
ing. At the meeting of the bishop and presbyters on the 5th 
November, the deponent attempted to deliver an address 
which he had previously prepared, in order to avoid every 
thing irrelevant to the subject, or indecorous in form of ex- 
pression. 

The deponent having been repeatedly interrupted while 
reading his address, on the ground of its irrelevancy to the 
subject, was finally obliged to stop, on account of the repeat- 
ed interruptions. The deponent now produces a copy of that 
address to be taken as part of his testimony. He was inter- 



156 

rupted while reading the address, by bishop Moore, who said, 
" that he speaks against the bishop." The deponent was in- 
terrupted by Mr. Lyell, who said, that is not relevant, Dr. 
Moore ; — that has been decided ; oh no, you were not pres- 
ent." The deponent does not recollect what Mr. Lyell 
meant " had been decided." The deponent says, that the 
plaintiff made a verbal protest against the proceeding of the 
bishop aud presbyters, because they had not been con- 
vened by the proper authority, and because all the presbyters 
in the diocese had not been notified, and some of the presby- 
ters present were parties in the case, and that some of them 
had given certificates against him. The deponent says, that 
the Rev. Mr. How was as active a member as any other of 
Hie presbyters, and particularly in interrupting the deponent. 
The deponent says, that the general usage in the settlement 
of clergymen in the episcopal church in this state is a per- 
manent settlement, unless specially called for a limited time ; 
and he has known some such instances. The deponent was 
brought up in Trinty Church, in the city of New-York, and 
never knew other than permanent settlements in that church 
before the call of Mr. Chapman, which was five or six years 
ago, and who was called for a limited time, as the deponent 
understood. The deponent says,that he has always considered 
the real parties to the existing controversy in Trinity Church 
to be bishop Hobart, Mr. How, and the plaintiff, and that if 
the vestry had left it alone, it would have been settled long 
ago ; the deponent does not think this difference took its rise 
from the publication of the plaintiff's book, but that the book 
took its rise from the differences; he does not know that the 
members of the congregation of TrinityChurch generally knew 
any thing of any differences,before the publication of the plain- 
tiff's book • the deponent knew from the plaintiff, and from the 
operation of the differences between him and the persons before 
named,that such differences did exist,anterior to the publication 
of the plaintiff's book. The deponent says that he, as one of 
the eldest presbyters, called several times on bishop Moore 
and requested him to interfere with his authority to settle the 
aforesaid differences, for that if he did not, it would produce 
anarchy and confusion in the church; the deponent says, that 






157 

he recollects, that one of the subjects upon which he conversed 
with bishop Moore, was an objection on the part of bishop 
Hobart and Mr. How to the plaintiff's exchanging pulpits with 
the deponent, as he understood from the plaintiff; that the de- 
ponent asked bishop Moore, whether he had any objection to 
such exchange, to which he replied •* none in nature," and the 
deponent then observed to bishop Moore, if he as rector had 
no objection, he could not see the propriety of his assistant 
ministers interfering to prevent it, and that if he the depo- 
nent had an assistant minister with him in his church he would 
let him know, that he the deponent was rector; the deponent 
also recommended to bishop Moore, that he should convene all 
his presbyters who were involved in controversy, and insist 
upon their settling their differences; and that if he did not, it 
would be brought before the civil authority to settle at last ; 
the deponent says that he thought there was cause enough be- 
fore the publication of the plaintiff's book to publish it, but the 
deponent never advised it ; the deponent says that the plain- 
tiff complained to him that his influence in the congregation 
of Trinity Church was lessened in consequence of the acts of 
Dr. Hobart and Mr. How, and that the deponent replied, that 
as far as his own observations extended, that was not the 
case ; the deponent then advised the plaintiff to be very cau- 
tious how he published, for if Dr. Hobart's influence should 
prove to be greater than his, it might prove his ruin ; the de- 
ponent says, that he does believe that Dr. Hobart and Mr. 
How did object to the plaintiff exchanging pulpits with the 
deponent, that this belief was founded on the deportment of 
these gentlemen toward the deponent, and from the admission 
of bishop Moore, when deponent expostulated with him as 
aforesaid ; the deponent says that after the publication of the 
plaintiff's book, the deponent wrote a letter to Dr. Hobart in 
answer to one which he received from him, copies of which 
letters he now produces and delivers as part of his testimony; 
the deponent says that he never has discovered any indispo- 
sition on the part of the plaintiff; to come to a settlement of 
all subsisting differences upon proper principles ; but on the 
contrary, it has always been his wish ; the deponent does not 
think that bishop Hobart has manifested the same disposition, 



15S 

with respect to the plaintiff; the deponent stays, that on the 
■evening before the election of bishop Hobart, a meeting of 
the clergy involved in controversy was proposed to be holden 
at Dr. Beach's house, with a view to a general settlement of 
all differences, and that an union of sentiment might prevail 
in the choice of a bishop; several clergymen did attend, but 
neither Dr. Hobart nor Mr. How or any person to represent 
them, and of course nothing was done. Deponent on being 
cross examined says, that he saw the plaintiff's book in manu- 
script before it was published, he thinks he may have seen 
some parts of it, three or four months previous to the publica- 
tion. That from the time of his first acquaintance with Dr. 
Hobart, which was about the year 1S00, or 1801, until the 
summer of 1808, he was in terms of the strictest intimacy 
with him, and never during that time heard him say any 
thing against the plaintiff, or speak of him in an unfriendly 
vr&y ; he does not remember whether or not the plaintiff was 
the subject of conversation but he thinks it probable he was ; 
soon after the sitting of the general convention in 1808, the 
plaintiff stated to deponent that he thought Dr. Hobart dis- 
covered undue ambition in his views, but this was not the 
cause of the intimacy between Dr. Hobart and the deponent 
being broken off; there was a conversation between the plain- 
tiff and deponent prior to the meeting of the state convention 
in 1808, respecting the turning Dr. Hobart out of the office 
of secretary of that body, but who first suggested it, he does 
not know ; thinks it as probable that he was the first, as that 
the plaintiff was : it was however not attempted to be done; 
the deponent voted for Dr. Hobart according to the best of his 
remembrance ; the deponent says that lie understood from bi- 
shop Provoost during the present controversy, that he had 
discovered since the commencement of it that he was still the 
diocesan; and that he had first discovered it on reading Mr. 
Ireland's pamphlet; bishop Provoost also mentioned to the 
deponent that he discovered from minutes of the general con- 
vention, that he was still the diocesan; and that bishop Moore 
had only been consecrated as his coadjutor, and considering 
the unpleasant state of the church, and the oppressed situa- 
tion: of the plaintiff, he determined to act; the deponent says 



159 

any three bishops have a right to consecrate a bishop without 
a vote or order of the house of bishops according to the pro- 
visions of the canon ; that at the meeting of bishop Moore 
and the presbyters in November 1811, Mr. King spoke for a 
short time ; the deponent thinks that bishop Moore during 
the sitting of that convocation, comprehended perfectly the 
nature of the subject before them ; in the conversation which 
is before stated to have taken place between bishop Moore 
and the deponent, in which he advised that the plaintiff 
should quit the diocese, lie is of opinion that bishop Moore 
was influenced by a wish to restore harmony in the church ; 
the deponent thinks the publication of the plaintiff's book 
excited much uneasiness, among the acquaintance of the de- 
ponent in Trinity Church, some of whom espoused the cause 
of Dr. Hobart, and some that of the plaintiff; the deponent 
has understood, and as he believes from Dr. Harris, that Dr. 
Beach had proposed, that none of the clergy should exchange 
pulpits with the deponent; Dr. Harris and the plaintiff have 
both said to the deponent, that they would not exchange pul* 
pits with him, unless he gave up what they called irregulari- 
ties in the discharge of his clerical duties; the deponent un- 
derstood, that when it was proposed in conversation among 
the clergy that they should not exchange pulpits with the 
deponent, that Dr. Harris observed, that if the deponent was 
irregular, the true way would be to bring the deponent before 
the proper authority; to which Dr. Hobart objected, saying 
the deponent would then raise the cry of persecution. The 
deponent on being again examined by the plaintiff, says, that 
the irregularities before alluded to in this deposition, referred, 
the deponent understood, to the habit which he was then in, 
of meeting the religious part of his congregation, in private 
societies ; and being engaged with them in extempore prayer ; 
the deponent knows of no other irregularity with which he 
was charged; he has discontinued extempore prayer, in con- 
sequence of finding it disagreeable to his brethren, and the 
remonstrance of Dr. Harris and Mr. Jones on the subject, 
who stated, if the deponent did not, in order to preserve har- 
mony with the rest of the clergy they would be obliged to 
discontinue exchanging pulpits with him, and that if he did. 



160 

all difficulties would be removed ; but the deponent says, that 
although he did comply, the difficulties were not removed, 
except as it regarded Dr. Harris and the plaintiff. Deponent 
on being again cross examined says, the plaintiff when re- 
monstrating with the deponent against extempore prayer, said 
he thought it would be construed into a violation of the canon 
of the church ; he does not know that Dr. Hobart and Mr. 
How were informed that he had discontinued extempore pray- 
er in the private meetings with the members of his congrega- 
tion, but that Dr, Harris and the plaintiff informed the depo- 
nent, they had informed bishop Moore of this circumstance ; 
the deponent says that he did receive a notice to attend the 
convention in October 1811, but that no notice to attend a 
previous convocation as is usual was annexed thereto ; which 
the deponent inferred, was in consequence of bishop Moore's 
being out of town, and further he saith not. 

Copy of a letter from Br. Richard Channing Moore to bishop 

Hobart, 1811. 
Right Reverend Sir, 

In your letter to me of the 5th inst. you have been pleas- 
ed to observe, that you have never doubted my disposition to 
do justice to all persons, and then proceed to propose several 
questions, to which you retmest an early answer. To the 
questions thus offered to my consideration, I should not have 
hesitated to reply without reserve, although you had omitted 
the assurance that you have no intention to implicate me in 
my answers, and pledge yourself that my reply shall not be 
employed to my disadvantage. 

In order that you may perfectly understand me, I will an- 
swer the points suggested in your letter in their proper order; 
and shall then take the liberty, in an affectionate and broth- 
erly manner, to express to you my views, with respect to the 
amicable and final adjustment of all existing differences be- 
tween yourself and others. In the discharge of what I con- 
ceive to be my duty, I shall not forget the respect which I owe 
to you as an assistant bishop of the church ; neither shall the 
circumstances of my years and sacerdotal labours be so far 
forgotten as to induce me to affect a style of servility foreign to 



161 

the constitution of my mind and the dignity of a christian. You 
and I, sir, lived for many years as brethren, and I can say with 
truth, that I have lamented with deep regret, the cause 
which first produced that distance which at present subsists 
between us, and that I shall hail as one of the most auspi- 
cious moments of my life, the happy period which shall bring 
us all into the bonds of fraternal union. 

Question first. Until some short time after the general con- 
vention at Baltimore, in 1808, were we not on terms of 
friendly intercourse, and during that period, when according 
to my recollection, there was no particular intimacy between 
yourself and Mr. Jones, did I ever attempt to prejudice your 
mind against him, or speak of him in your hearing, in other 
than respectful and affectionate terms, or did my conduct give 
you any reason to consider that my views in respect to him 
were unfriendly or hostile ? 

Answer. As there was no particular intimacy between Mr* 
Jones and myself at that period, I do not recollect that our 
conversation ever embraced that gentleman, or his concerns ; 
consequently you could not have dropped anjy expressions of 
an unfriendly or hostile nature respecting him. 

Question second. At the general convention in Baltimore, 
in 1808, did you consider me as the advocate of intolerant 
measures ; on the contrary, was I not at that time in opposi- 
tion to the sentiments of some with whom I generally acted; 
the advocate of measures deemed by you and your particular 
friends in that convention, moderate and conciliating? 

Answer, Your conduct at that convention was, in my o- 
pinion, moderate and conciliating. 

Question third. Soon after that convention, did not our 
former friendly intercourse cease, and did you not state to 
me in an accidental conversation on the subject, that you 
were informed by a friend, that I had been opposed to your 
appointment at St. John's Church, and that I was openlyyour 
friend, but covertly your enemy ? 

Answer. Soon after that convention our former friendly 
intercourse did cease, but from a cause very remote from any 
circumstances involved in the present disagreement. I per- 
fectiy recollect a free conversation in which we were engaged 

x 



162 

but whether it was accidetital or not, you must be the best 
judge, as it was commenced by yourself. The circumstances 
of St. John's Church was, I believe, brought into view, to- 
gether with the particular circumstance which had produced 
a cessation of friendly intercourse between us, and I think, 
I honestly told you, that I was grieved to my heart, that a- 
midst all the professions of civility with which you had favour- 
ed me, there should have existed on your part a want of sin- 
cerity. 

It is hardly possible, sir, from the constitution of our 
nature, that we should pass through life without some differ- 
ences and disagreements ; but as the religion which w r e preach 
contains a remedy for all the difficulties to which we are ex- 
posed, should we not act wisely to take the benefit of that 
provision made for us in the gospel, and settle our disputes a- 
greeably to the precepts of Christianity. Is not forgiveness one 
of the fairest features belonging to the christian character ? and 
is it not upon that principle that w r e solicitof offended heaven 
the forgiveness of our sins ? Is it not enjoined upon us by our 
divine master to extend this charity to our brother, though 
he should sin against us seventy times seven? 

When disagreements take place between brethren, how are 
these disagreements to be reconciled, unless those brethren 
will ineet and converse upon the subject ? Could such an in- 
terview be effected, I am perfectly convinced all existing dis- 
putes would be settled, and harmony and affection pervade our 
friends. Permit me, therefore, sir, to request you to adopt 
the salutary and becoming measure. Express your wish that 
the parties .concerned should meet and come to an explana- 
tion. Let those who have offended their brethren apologize 
for their conduct ; and let the party so offended imitate the ex- 
ample set us by the Redeemer, and throw a veil of oblivion 
over the failings of the transgressor. My temper, I acknowl- 
edge with sorrow, is quick, but at the same time I can say 
with truth, that my relentings flow with as much rapidity as 
my resentment; and that I am never ashamed to confess an 
error. Yes, sir, there is no man in existence to whom I 
would hesitate to make an apology, were my mind convinced 
that I had offered him the least injury or indignity. Will 
you permit me to make one more observation upon the sub* 



163 

j^ctof a general reconciliation. You are now viewed by the 
church as the father of the clergy. To wound is not the cha- 
racteristic of a parent; but to overlook the weaknesses of his 
children, and to heal their divisions, you will acknowledge, 
should be his duty and delight. Make therefore the attempt, 
and rely upon it, that the measure will secure to you the ap- 
probation of God, peace in your own mind, and the universal 
love of those connected with you. Could you see my heart, you 
would be sensible that the above observations flow from the 
purest motives; God, I firmly believe approves them. Ac- 
cept the assurances of my regard, and believe me very res- 
pectfully yours, &c. 

(Signed) Richard Channing Moore. 

Correspondence between Dr. Richard Channing Moore, andlishop 
Moore, September 1811. 

September 13tb, 1811. 
Right Rev. Sir, 

Since the conversation which I held with you, at your 
request, upon the subject of the differences existing in the 
Church, I have seen Mr. Jones ; and have communicated to 
him the principles of accommodation which were suggested by 
you. I told him, that although you were not authorized to 
say, that the vestry of Trinity Church would allow him ado- 
nation, in case he would retire from their connection, still 
you took it for granted that they might be persuaded to com- 

^ ply with such a measure, provided he would consent to re- 
move from the diocese. His reply was precisely such as I 
expected. He observed that he is ready to receive any pro- 
posals from the corporation over which you preside, which in 
the estimation of christians can be thought equitable and con- 
sistent; but refuses in the most explicit terms, to bind him- 
self to leave his native city, or the diocese in which he resides. 

. I do think, sir, most sincerely that the condition upon which 
your proposals are founded, is of a nature too humiliating to 
be complied with. As one of your elder presbyters, there- 
fore, I think it my duty to express a hope, that whatever prin- 
ciples of accommodation may be proposed, they may not bring 
into view a condition so distressing to the mind, so degrading 



16* 

to a public character, and so uncongenial to the principles of 
our civil constitution. 

I remain Right Rev. Sir, 
Your most obedient servant, 
(Signed) Richard Channing Moore, 

To the above the bishop replied. 

Bishop Moore begs leave to observe to Dr. Moore, that he 
misunderstood his meaning, when he supposed that Mr. Jones' 
leaving the diocese was a condition required. Bishop Moore's 
only wish was to fall on some method of dissolving the con- 
nection between Trinity Church and Mr. Jones. 

Saturday afternoon, September 14th, 181 U 

To which J replied. 
Right Rev. Sir, 

I will embrace the earliest opportunity to inform Mr. 
Jones of the mistake, into which you conceive me to have fal- 
len ; and shall be very happy if matters can be so adjusted, 
as to return to the church that tranquillity of which it at 
present is deprived. 

With respect I remain 
Right Rev. Sir, 
(Signed) Richard Channing Moore, 

A ddress delivered in part, November 5th, 1811. 
Right Rev. Sir, 

The present moment forms a period in the church, tru- 
ly important ; a crisis, in which its peace and prosperity may 
be secured, or its ruin decided. Impressed with this senti- 
ment, I consider it my Indispensable duty, to express my 
views of things, with that honesty becoming my years; and 
although I am sensible of the formidable opposition with 
which I have to combat, still cloathed with the attire of con- 
scious rectitude, I shall advance with firmness, and shall not 
ehrink from the discharge of that duty imposed upon me by 
God, and the dictates of my own heart. 

Sir, the present state of things has been foreseen by the 
friends of the church for several years past. The prospect of 



165 

the situation, in which we are now involved, has produced 
in my mind the greatest disquietude ; and every exertion has 
been made within the compass of my power to prevent it. 

I have, sir, in repeated conversations Avith yourself pre- 
dicted the present state of things. I have told you with an 
aching heart, that the system which has been pursued, would 
necessarily lead to events the most unfavourable ; and have 
entreated you to interpose your authority, to save us from an- 
archy and confusion. 

The subject, sir, of our present deliberation involves in it 
the happiness of an individual, in whose welfare I am deeply 
interested, and whose virtues entitle him to my sincerest re- 
gards. His depressed situation has not produced an aliena- 
tion of my friendship, but on the contrary has attached me to 
him by additional ties ; and if my feeble efforts can avail in 
relieving him from his distresses, Gr in mitigating his sorrows, 
my heart will vibrate with sensations of the purest joy. 

We are told, sir, that Mr. Jones, by the publication of his 
pamphlet, has disturbed the peace of the church, and that it 
is necessary, for the well being of the religious society to 
which we belong, that he should be made to feel some mark 
of public disapprobation. Before we proceed to inflict a pun- 
ishment upon that gentleman, let us, as men, and christians, 
take a view of the state of things, prior to the publication of 
his Appeal; and let us see whether there is not something to 
be discovered, which may lessen the blame attached to him 5 
and which may have a tendency to abate the resentment of 
his brethren. 

Mr. Jones declares in his pamphlet, that several of his col- 
leagues in Trinity Church, have pursued a line of dictation 
towards him, to which no honest man could quietly submit. 
He has been forbidden, under the pain of their displeasure, to 
exchange pulpits with either Mr. Feltus or myself. The 
clergy with whom he is in habits of friendly intercourse, were 
spoken of in terms of disrespect, and branded with epithets 
the most unwarrantable. Mr. Jones, sir, and Dr. Harris 
waited upon yourself, as rector of Trinity Church, in order 
to ascertain whether you had any objections to their exchang- 
ing pulpits, witjh me, and your reply was such as became 






your station. You declared that you had uo objections ; and 
told Dr. Harris that you conceived me to be a worthy man, 
and a useful clergyman ! If those gentlemen, sir, who had 
imposed such a penalty upon Mr. Jones, as the loss of their 
friendship, had been actuated by proper principles, they would, 
after hearing the expression of your sentiments, have relin- 
quished the ground they had taken, and permitted Mr. Jones 
to have acted agreeably to his own views. This, however, 
sir, w r as not the case ; they still persisted in the resolution, 
which they had adopted, and treated him with unkindness and 

reserve. (Here I was interrupted.) 

After reflecting deeply upon the subject of the difficulties in 
which he was involved, and conscious that the opposition of 
his colleagues would destroy his usefulness, he determined to 
bring the existing difficulties to a conclusion. He made you, 
sir, acquainted in the first place, with the state of things. 
That interference, however, which he expected to have re- 
ceived at your hands, was withheld, and his difficulties con- 
tinued to increase. After waiting a considerable time, is 
hopes that your authority would have been exercised in his 
behalf, he called upon a gentleman, with whose virtues and 
moderation we are all acquainted, and solicited him to wait 
upon Dr. Hobart and to inform that gentleman, that Mr. Jones 
was desirous that all their disputes might be settled; and that 
he was willing to submit their difficulties to a few of the laity, 
Whose opinion upon the subject should decide the controversy, 
and be final and conclusive. To this arrangement, sir, bishop 
Hobart objected; and consequently the attempts of Mr. Jones, 
to restore tranquillity proved nugatory and vain. 

In this awful dilemma, Mr. Jones determined to present 
his difficulties to general view. As he had suffered for years 
in private, under the heaviest distresses of mind, he was anx- 
ious to discover whether an ingenuous public would wink at 
a continuance of existing evils, and countenance the oppres- 
sion under winch he laboured : the effect, sir, has been pre- 
cisely such, as every man acquainted with human nature, 
would have expected. Mr. Jones's friends feel for his distres- 
ses, and are disposed to vindicate his rights, while others, 
bring the publication as a charge to his disadvantage, and are 



167 

determined, if possible, to render it his ruin. This statement, 
sir, appears to me, to contain a narration of some of the most 
prominent features of those difficulties, which we are called 
this day to settle". Here then, my fellow presbyters, here let 
us pause ! Here let us solemnly pause t and weigh with calm- 
ness the nature jof that business, which is now before us. 
We are called, sir, to sanction the dissolution of that con- 
nection subsisting between Mr. Jones and Trinity Church ! 
My mind revolts at the idea, and is agitated with alarm for 
the safety of others, as well as for the safety of Mr. Jones. 
If, sir, the presbyters of the church should countenance the 
dismissal of Mr. Jones, they that moment establish a prece- 
dent which may operate against themselves ! for I insist upon 
it, sir, and I express it as my honest opinion, that the mo- 
ment we sanction such a measure, our private contracts with 
our vestries will be rendered a mere nullity, and we may, in 
our turn, be thrown naked upon the world. In any instance, 
sir, in which a clergyman may offend his bishop, the influ- 
ence of that bishop may be so great, as to obtain from the 
vestry of the congregation to which such a clergyman is at- 
tached, a vote of the same nature with that received from 
Trinity Church, after which the presbyters may be convened, 
and the clergyman, however worthy, be deprived of his liv- 
ing ! (Here I was grievously interrupted.) 

I do not say, sir, that any bishop at present in the church, 
could be influenced by motives of personal resentment, God 
forbid! but I say, sir, considering the nature of men, such 
events may happen, and it is our duty, our solemn duty, to 
guard against them. I have frequently observed to you, sir, 
that the government of the church upon earth, should resem- 
ble as much as possible the government of the church in hea- 
ven ! That government, sir, is established upon the basis of 
mercy- — It breathes a spirit of pardon and forgiveness to those 
who have offended ! and proclaims in accents of benevolence, 
that though our sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white 
as snow. I am aware, sir, that it will be observed that the 
forgiveness of which I speak is proclaimed upon the principle 
of penitence and submission. 



168 

This I grant — but let us remember, that every page 
in our bibles teems with an assurance that the Almighty is 
willing to forgive, and invites us by the most tender entrea- 
ties to return to his bosom ! Is this, sir, I would ask, the 
precise state of things with respect to Mr. Jones ? Has the 
declaration of a willingness to forgive him been expressed ? 
Has any individual been authorized to go to that gentleman, 
and to assure him, that a proper concession for any injury 
which his pamphlet may have effected, would be accepted, 
and that he would be received into favour ? I ask it before 
God, has any such disposition been discovered ? No, sir, I 
can, and I will bear witness, that no such propositions of mer- 
cy have been made ! On the contrary, when such questions 
as the above were suggested to Dr. Hobart, by Dr. Harris 
and myself, they did not meet with that reception becoming 
the importance of our inquiry. There has been no mercy 
seat discovered to which my afflicted friend might have re- 
course ! The mercy seat has been obscured by clouds and 
thick darkness, from which nothing but lightnings and thun- 
derings have issued. (Here I was interrupted.) 

With respect, sir, to the canon, by virtue of which the pres- 
byters have been convened, it is my duty to observe that it 
does not in my opinion apply to the case in question. It con- 
templates in its expression, a full persuasion that every at- 
tempt has been made to effect a reconciliation between the 
ministers and congregation, and that those efforts have been 
ineffectual ! In the present instance, sir, no exertion has 
been used which, in its remotest tendency, could be said to 
look to so desirable an object. There has been but one effort 
used from the beginning, and that has been, to secure the 
destruction of Mr. Jones, by an expulsion from that congre- 
gation to which he has been lawfully called* Another objec- 
tion which arises in my mind, and which it is my duty to 
state, is this, that the presbyters are to be called by the bi- 
shop of the diocese. This regulation, sir, has not been com- 
plied with ; but, on the contrary, we have been convened by 
the coadjutor bishop. When I received the letter enjoining 
my attendance at this time, I waited upon bishop Provoosfc. 
and requested him to inform me, whether his concurrence to 



160 

the measure had been obtained. He assured me without any 
hesitation, that he had never been consulted, consequently , 
that he could not have concurred. 

With all these difficulties staring us in the face, I do think, 
sir, we had better stop our proceedings, and before we coru: 
sent |p the adoation of a measure, so serious in its nature, a& 
the measure opjemplated, calmly reflect, whether a decision 
of that description, may not involve us in most untoward 
circumstances. For my own part, sir, I shall not be present, 
when the question of Mr. Jones's expulsion is proposed! the 
ruin of that innocent man shall not be charged at my door! 
and in addition to that consideration, I pronounce it as my 
opinion, that we have not been legally and canonically called ! 
In reflecting, sir, upon the manner in which Ave have been 
convened to deliberate upon the important question before us, 
the following idea occurred to me. 

Had bishop Provoost been removed by death, and had bi- 
shop Hobart called me upon this occasion without the consent 
or knowledge of bishop Moore, would I have thought it con- 
sistent with my duty to attend? and the answer which my un- 
derstanding has invariably made, was this — that I would not 
be justifiable — nay, sir, from motives of respect to you, I 
should not have listened to his summons; I would not have 
appeared at all. 

But, sir, if notwithstanding all these considerations, we 
are determined to proceed, I would beg leave to call the at- 
tention of my fellow presbyters to one more particular — a 
consideration which may perhaps awaken their sympathy, 
and induce them to be cautious — Mr. Jones, sir, has a wife, 
and two amiable daughters, upon whose countenances may be 
traced in legible characters, the distresses of an affectionate, 
a tender and pious father. They have witnessed the oppres- 
sion under which he has long groaned! they have marked 
with conjugal and filial regard, the sighs which have heaved 
his labouring bosom ! Can we, sir, who have families, con- 
sent to a measure which must involve them in inconceivable 
trouble ? Can we, sir, be willing to exercise the power, 
even if we should be found to possess it, of consigning to 
ruin an amiable familv, and of crushing at one blow a fellow 

T 



iff 



170 

presbyter? It is, sir, a farce to say, that Mr. Jones may rfe* 
move to another situation, and be happy! No, sir, the odium 
which will be attached to his dismission will adhere to him 
while he lives, and destroy his usefulness forever! Let us thea 
exercise that compassion towards him, which we daily entreat 
the Almighty to bestow upon us! Let us be merciful as our 
v Father in heaven is merciful ! and let us remHPfer, that witb 
what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again — let 
us recollect the solemnity of the occasion. Put on, as the 
elect of God, bowels of mercies. Let us remember, that the 
wisdom which is from above, is full of mercy; and instead 
ot imitating the conduct of that priest and Levite, let us stop! 
examine the deep wounds which have been already inflicted 
upon my friend, and pour the oil and wine of consolation into 
them. Let us, sir, forgive, I repeat it — let us forgive, if we 
ever expect mercy at the hands of God. 

New-York, ss. David Moore, of Staten Island; a wit- 
ness produced on the part of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, 
deposeth and saith, that he is a minister of the episcopal 
church, and settled at Richmond on Staten Island, was or- 
dained a priest on the 18th October 1811, as well as he can 
recollect; and has been settled at Richmond aforesaid since 
that time; he has never been regularly inducted rector, but 
upon being ordained priest, he became invested with all the 
privileges of rector in his parish, but not entitled to a seat m 
the convention: that he was called some time in November 
1809, being then a deacon. From the time he was ordained 
priest, he has considered and doth now consider himself, un- 
der the jurisdiction of the bishop of this diocese, and as a 
presbyter thereof; he was not summoned to meet bishop 
Moore, and his presbyters in November 1811 : and further he 
saith not. 

New-York, ss. Samuel F. Jarvis, of Bloomingdale, in 
(he city of New-York, a witness produced on the part of 
the plaintiff, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he 
W#s settled as rector of the parish of St. Michael's, at Bloom- 
ingdale aforesaid, in April 1811, he then being a priest in- 



£71 

the episcopal church, and has from that time considered him- 
self under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese of New- 
York, as one of his presbyters. The deponent says, that 
prior to Good Friday in the year 1812, he was in the habit 
of exchanging pulpits with Dr. Harris, and did exchange 
with him on that day; soon after which the deponent receiv- 
ed an intimation from Dr. Bowen, that the deponent's ex- 
changing pulpits with Dr. Harris was not approved of by 
Mshop Moore. The deponent requested Dr. Bowen to ask 
bishop Moore to make a communication on the subject to the 
deponent in writing; some short time afterwards Dr. Bowen 
requested the deponent to call and see bishop Moore, which 
he did, and received from bishop Moore a written communi- 
cation, a copy of which he afterwards sent in a letter to Dr. 
Harris, a copy of which letter is now produced and hereunto 
annexed. In consequence of receiving the aforesaid com- 
munication from bishop Moore, the deponent did abstain from 
exchanging pulpits with Dr. Harris. In the interview afore- 
said between bishop Moore and the deponent, bishop Moore 
asked the deponent whether he knew that Dr. Harris had 
protested against his, bishop Moore's, authority, and on the 
deponent answering that he had heard that such a protest 
had been entered, but that he had never seen it, bishop Moore 
shewed the deponent a paper signed by Dr. Harris, which 
the deponent understood to be the protest entered by Dr. 
Harris and others, to the proceedings of bishop Moore and 
his presbyters in the business of the plaintiff. The deponent 
says, that he understood Dr. Moore and Mr. Feltus had sign- 
ed the aforesaid protest, and he therefore considered himself 
equally bound by the aforesaid written communication to ab- 
stain from exchanging pulpits with those gentlemen. The 
deponent was not summoned to meet bishop Moore as one of 
his presbyters in November 1811. 

On being cross examined the deponent says, that he never 
has been regularly instituted as rector, and is not entitled to 
a seat in the convention. 

The deponent being again examined on the part of the 
plaintiff, saith, that he considers a priest settled in the diocese, 
as a presbyter and subject to the jurisdiction of the fcishop, al- 



172 

though not entitled to a seat in the convention. The depo= 
nent says, that his father, the late bishop Jarvis, was very 
cautious as to the delivery of his sentiments respecting the 
controversy, which has taken place in New- York, relative to 
the rights of bishops Provoost and Moore, supposing it proba- 
ble a reference would be made on the subject to the college 
of bishops, in which case the decision he would have given, 
would have rendered the expressions of his private opinion 
unnecessary. The deponent never asked his father any ques* 
tions of which he clearly recollects the substance of his re- 
ply ; but his general impression is, that he thought the bishops, 
as a collegiate body, in their capacity as successors of the 
apostles, are the source from which alone all power in the 
church can emanate ; and consequently^ that the decision of 
the question respecting the claim of bishops Provoost and 
Moore, could be made only by that body. And further the 
deponent saith not. 

Copy of a letter from Samuel F. Jarvis to the Rev. Dr. Harris, 
rector of St. Mark's Church, Bowery, New-York. 

Bloomingdale, May 1, 1812. 
Rev. and dear sir, 

On Sunday the 12th of April, I learned from the Rev. 
Mr. Bowen, that my exchanging services with you on Good 
"Friday, had given offence to bishop Moore ; and a message 
was delivered to me by the same gentleman, forbidding me 
to do so any more. As a verbal communication, which had 
passed through two or three mouths, seemed to me liable to 
misconstruction, and therefore not proper to be made the rule 
of my conduct, I wished to receive my directions immediate- 
ly from the bishop himself, and accordingly requested Mr. 
Bowen to ask bishop Moore to address me in writing. The 
next time I saw him he informed me that bishop Moore re- 
quested me to call upon him ; I did so on Monday the 27th 
of April, and received from him a written communication > pf 
which the following is a copy ;■— 



173 

New-York, April 21th, 1812. 
This is to certify, that I think it improper for Mr. Jarvis to 
Invite any of the clergymen, who have protested against the 
authority of the church, to officiate in his pulpit. 

(Signed) BENJ. MOORE. 

As I wish to live in unity and peace with all my brethren, 
you Will, I am sure, duly appreciate the motives which have 
induced me to write you this letter. 

J am, with much respect, 

Reverend and dear sir, 

Your friend and brother, 
(Signed) SAMUEL F. JARVIS. 

New-York, ss. Albert Smith, of the city of New- York, 
a witness on the part of the plaintiff, being duly sworn, de- 
poseth and saith, that on Monday morning about nine o'clock, 
the day on which Dr. Hobart's pamphlet in answer to the 
plaintiff's " Solemn Appeal" appeared, Dr.Hobart called at the 
house of the deponent, and observed that he supposed the de- 
ponent had read the plaintiff's pamphlet, which he had done, 
and requested him to go to Mr. Swords's and get his, Dr. 
Hobart's, answer to it, which the deponent did ; Mr. Swords 
making some objection to letting the deponent have it, unfil 
he was told, that the deponent came at Dr. Hobart's request 
when Mr. Swords gave him a copy, and requested that the 
deponent would return it when he had read it. About an 
hour after leaving Mr. Swords's store, the deponent met Dr» 
Hobart, and told him what had passed between Mr. Swords 
and him, when Dr. Hobart said, that the deponent might 
keep the pamphlet as long as he pleased, and to read it with 
deliberation. Dr. Hobart expressed regret at being obliged 
to publish it, but that it was insisted upon by his friends, as 
the plaintiff was gaining ground on him so fast, as they said. 
The deponent, both before and after the aforesaid interview 
with Dr. Hobart, endeavoured to obtain a copy of the " So- 
lemn Appeal," without effect, having understood that the sale 
was stopt ; — and further he saith not. 



Ne?v-YorJc, &. William Walker, of the city of New- 
York, a witness produced on the part of the plaintiff; being 
duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he is a book binder, and 
stitched the whole edition of the " Solemn Appeal," which 
tie delivered to William Barlas, as agent of the plaintiff, and 
afterwards by the direction of Mr. Barlas, the deponent dis- 
tributed parts of the edition to other book sellers. That some 
time in the latter end of June, or the beginning of July, 18-11, 
Mr. Barlas directed the deponent to collect all the aforesaid 
pamphlets which were unsold, which he did, and they were 
brought to Mr. Barlas's store, and counted on the 8th of 
July, and stowed away in the garret of Mr. Barlas, where 
ihey still remain, so far as the deponent knows. The depo- 
nent says that Mr. Barlas, on account of indisposition, is not 
able to attend to testify in this cause. 

On being cross examined he says, that there were between 
9G0 and 1000 of the " Solemn Appeal" published, and as well 
as he can remember, about 500 were recalled. Since the 
time the pamphlet was recalled as aforesaid, it has been again 
offered for sale in Mr. Barlas's store, and in others ; but he 
as pretty confident that they were not again offered for sale 
previous to November 1811 ; — and further he saith not 

New-York^ ss. Samuel Hannat, of the city of New- 
York, a witness produced on the part of the plaintiff, being 
duly affirmed, saith, that he is a clerk in the book store of 
Collins & Co. who received a number of pamphlets entitled, 
a A Solemn Appeal," from William Barlas, a book seller, 
for sale, all of which they sold, and about the latter end of 
June, or the beginning of July, 1811, Barlas directed the sale 
<af that pamphlet to be stopt, and they received no more ; — * 
snd further the deponent saith not. 

New-York, ss. Thomas Farmar, of the city of New- 
York, merchant, a witness produced on the part of the plain- 
tiff, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he was chair- 
man of a committee appointed by a number of episcopalians, 
who met on the subject of the differences that subsisted be- 
*ween bishop Hobart and the plaintiff? the object of which 



17 $ 

Gonunittee was to endeavour to obtain a settlement of the 
aforesaid differences. That committee appointed a sub-corn- 
inittee, consisting of Peter Mesier, P. J. Munro, J. Farquhar, 
and the deponent, who were directed to wait on bishop Hobart 
and the plaintiff to endeavour to effect a reconciliation. The 
sub-committee had an interview with bishop Hobart at his 
house on the 18th January 1812, and the substance of what 
passed between them, is contained in a paper written and 
subscribed by the members of the said committee at the time ; 
a copy of which is hereunto annexed. The deponent says, 
that afterwards, on the 21st or 22d of the aforesaid January* 
the said sub-committee waited on the plaintiff, and the sub^ 
stance of what passed between them is contained in a paper 
subscribed by the aforesaid members of the last aforesaid com- 
mittee, a copy of which is also hereunto annexed. The de- 
ponent says, that the aforesaid sub-committee afterwards, in 
the month of March, in the year last aforesaid, addressed a 
letter to the vestry of Trinity Church, a copy of which is 
also hereunto annexed, and that in consequence thereof, com- 
munications and subsequent correspondence, between the 
aforesaid committee and a committee of the said vestry took 
place, copies of which communications and correspondence 
are also hereunto annexed. The deponent says, that at the 
meeting of episcopalians herein before mentioned, he thinks 
there were two or three hundred present. 

The deponent being cross examined, says, that the inter- 
view between bishop Hobart and the sub-committee herein 
liefore mentioned, was subsequent to the proceedings of bishop 
Moore and his presbyters against the plaintiff, and his conse- 
quent suspension. The general meeting of episcopalians^ 
which he has before spoken of, was in consequence, as the 
deponent understood, of the differences that subsisted between 
the clergy of Trinity Church, and particularly bishop Hobart 
and the plaintiff, and in order to see if means could not be 
adopted to heal those differences. He has no recollection of 
the terms of the notice which convened that meeting, but he 
thinks it probable, that it embraced also an invitation to those 
who were dissatisfied with the proceedings of bishop Moore 
and his presbyters against the plaintiff, He thinks that those 



176 

proceedings were noticed at that meeting, and disapproved 
of. The deponent says, that he has no recollection of any 
reason given by Dr. Hobart for declining the conference with 
the sub-committee as aforesaid, but what are contained on that 
subject herein before referred to. 

On being again examined on the part of the plaintiff, says } 
that bishop Hobart's pamphlet, entitled, " A Letter to the 
Vestry of Trinity Church;" was sent to him, as he believes, 
by his neighbour, Mr. Rogers, and he thinks it was marked 
*' private _;" — and further he saith not. 

Report of Committee appointed to confer with bishop Hobart. 
The subscribers having been appointed, by a resolution of 
the 17 th instant, a committee to wait upon the right rev. 
bishop Hobart, and to acquaint him, that the general com- 
mittee and their constituents sincerely deplored the exist- 
ing dissentions in the church, and had authorized and in- 
structed us to confer with him upon the means most proper 
and expedient to de adopted, and most likely to prove effi- 
cacious in healing those dissentions, and restoring peace 
and harmony to the church, 

Respectfully Report, 
That on the 13th instant we waited upon bishop Hobart, 
a»t his dwelling house, and acquainted him with the said reso- 
lution. The bishop after expressing a hope that his answer 
would not be deemed disrespectful to us individually, said, he 
should decline all conference with us upon the subject ; but if 
we thought fit to make him a written communication, he would 
then consider ?vhether he would answer it ; and he concluded 
by repeating, that he hoped this answer would not be deem- 
ed disrespectful to us as individuals. Shortly afterwards he 
said, he had no objection to add a further idea, viz. it might 
be inconsistent with his station in the church to admit, by a 
conference with us, the legality or propriety of the meeting 
and its proceedings. His situation was a delicate one ; his 
act might become a precedent. He hoped we perceived the 
propriety of his conduct. He must decline the conference. 

We answered, that although our respect for him would not 
permit of our pressing a conference, which he was desirous- 



±77 

to decline, yet we must be allowed to remark, that we did 
not perceive, and could not admit it, to be either correct or 
right, that a bishop or pastor of a christian church should de- 
cline to confer with a portion of his flock, upon the means of 
healing dissentions in his church, and restoring its peace 
and harmony. The bishop replied, he declined a conference 
with us as the representatives of others, and not as individual 
members of the church. We answered, that we did not per- 
ceive his distinction to be correct ; that if the members ot his 
church were individually entitled to confer with him upon 
the subject of dissentions in it, our constituents, being mem- 
bers of the church, we as their delegates must be so entitled, 
The bishop made no reply, and the conversation ceased. 
(Signed) JAMES FARQUHAR, 
THOMAS FARMAR, 
PETER JAY MUNRO, 
PETER MESIER. 
New-York, ISth January, 1812. 

Report of the Sub-Committee to confer nrith Mr. Jones. 
The subscribers having been appointed by a resolution of the 
20th January last, a committee to wait on the rev. Mr. 
Cave Jones, and to make to him communications similar 
to those which they Were by a resolution of the 1 7th of 
that month directed to make to the rev. bishop Hobart, 

Respectfully Report, 
That upon the 21st or 22d of that month, they, in obedi 
ence to the said resolution, made to the rev. Mr. Jones com- 
munications similar to those which they had made to the rev. 
bishop Hobart, as stated in their report of the 18th January 
last. That Mr. Jones assured your committee that he greatly 
and sincerely deplored the existing differences in the churchy 
and that he would readily consent to the adoption of any 
measures not inconsistent with his duties and honour, which, 
would tend to heal those differences. 

(Signed) THOMAS FARMAR, * 
JAMES FARQUHAR, 
PETER JAY MUNRO, 
25th March, 1812. PETER MESIER. 



178 

To the Reclor, Wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity ChnrcH t 
Greeting. 

At a late meeting of a large number of episcopalians of 
ihis city, a committee was appointed to take such measures 
as might seem most conducive to the re-establishment of peace 
in our church, Of which committee we as the constituted or- 
gans have thought that we could not better pursue the objects 
of our appointment than by respectfully addressing you upon 
the subject. We find that a clergyman of our church to 
whom very many of its members are warmly attached, who 
was born in our city and has been distinguished from his in- 
fancy for his exemplary piety and morals, who has served the 
church with fidelity and zeal for many years, is now severely 
suffering in consequence of proceedings which have been had 
against him at your instance. It is not the object of this ad- 
dress to examine either the justice or propriety of the mea~ 
sures which have been pursued against the rev. Mr. Jones, 
we only regard at present the effect, which they have had to 
disturb the peace of the church, and we intreat you to con- 
eider whether there are not some means by which tranquillity 
and order may be restored. 

We are confident that if the Same spirit of reconciliation 
which is felt by Mr. Jones and his friends universally prevail- 
ed, there would be no difficulty in settling the existing dif- 
ferences on terms honourable to the church : they might be 
referred to the consideration and determination of indepen- 
dent, disinterested and impartial men. We are authorized 
to say that this is a means in which Mr. Jones and his friends 
will cheerfully acquiesce. If his proposition should not meet 
your approbation, we beg to be permitted to say, with al! 
that respect which is clue to you as individuals or as mem- 
bers of the vestry, that we hope you will feel it your duty to 
suggest some terms on which the affairs of the church can be 
settled, and that order and peace be restored which prevailed 
even when we were without the superintending care of a sin- 
gle bishop. With the same views with which we now address 
you, we applied to Dr. Hobart, not only on account of his 
standing in the church, but because we consider him more 
Immediately connected than any other with the existing dif 



ferences, and because we have a firm belief that if he woul# 
co-operate with us there would be little difficulty in effecting 
the purpose of our appointment; but unfortunately, as we can- 
not but think, Dr. Hobart would not condescend to notice 
our application. Under these circumstances we address our- 
selves to you, very respectfully but very earnestly intreating 
you to become on this occasion peace makers, and to employ 
as such that authority and influence which the church ha* 
delegated to you. 

We can confidently assure you that Mr, Jones is ready to 
do any thing which as a christian and honourable man can h,e 
required of him, and his friends will most cordially co-operate 
in any measures which are calculated to subserve the true 
interest of the church. 

We have the honour to be, gentlemen, 

Your most obedient humble servants* 
(Signed by the committee) THOMAS FARMAR, 

JAMES FARQUHAR, 
PETER MESIER, 
PETER J. MUNRO. 

TJie Committee- s Proposition to the Committee of the Vestry of 
Trinity Church. 

Although we are fully persuaded that the sentence pro- 
nounced against the rev. Mr. Jones, upon the complaint of 
the vestry of Trinity Church, is illegal and unjust, and ought 
to be annulled, for reasons assigned in the resolutions of the 
body whom we represent, yet being sincerely desirous to heal 
Xhe unhappy dissentions existing in our church, we beg leave 
to submit to you the following observations and propositions. 

We hold that a priest is not responsible to his congregation 
or to his bishop for any part of his extra or unofficial conduct, 
which his civil rights and moral duties authorize. 

That he has a civil and moral right to publish truths unfa- 
vourable to any active enemy, in order to diminish his power 
or opportunity of doing injuries, and in order also to mani-r 
fest the propriety of his own conduct relative to such an 
enemy. 



180 

That every free citizen, who is interested in the election 
of an officer civil or ecclesiastical, has a civil and a moral 
right to publish truth, calculated to show that this or that 
candidate is or is not qualified for the office. 

If those propositions be true, it appears to us that the only- 
question to be decided is, whether what Mr. Jones had pub- 
lished previous to the sentence against him, to wit, his pam- 
phlet called a " Solemn Appeal to the Church," was true or 
false. 

To decide this question we propose to the vestry. 

1st. That Bishop Hobart shall bring an action for a libel 
or for slander against Mr. Jones. 

2d. That Mr. Jones shall plead that the whole is true. 

3d. That if the court and jury should acquit Mr. Jones he 
shall be replaced in statu quo. 

4th. That if the court and jury should find him guilty, then 
those w T hom we represent shall cease to support him, and 
Mr. Jones shall acquiesce in the sentence. 

5th. That until the final decision of the suit so to be in- 
stituted a sum of money equal to Mr. Jones's former compen- 
sation shall be regularly paid to him by the vestry. 

(Signed by) THOMAS FARMAR, 
JAMES FARQUHAR, 
PETER MESIER, 
PETER JAY MUNRO 

March 23d, 1812. 

A Letter from the Committee of the Vestry. 
Gentlemen, 

The committee of the vestry of Trinity Church have re? 
fleeted upon what passed at their conference with you last 
evening, and it does not appear to them that the written pro- 
position you made them would be calculated, if accepted, 
to allay, but would rather tend to increase the irritations 
which at present unfortunately exist, and for this and other 
reasons they decline them ; but being truly and sincerely de- 
sirous to agree upon any measure which may afford a pros- 
pect of healing divisions, without violating their own duty 
op self-respect, they propose to you, to submit to the arbitra- 



181 

tion of respectable men, to be mutually agreed on, all th© 
existing legal differences now subsisting between the vestry 
and Mr. Jones. 

We are, gentlemen, 

Your obedient servants, 
DAVID M. CLARKSON, 
WILLIAM BAYARD, 
T. L. OGDEN, 
PETER AUGUSTUS JAY. 
March 23d, 1812. 

Letter to the Committee of the Vestry, 

New- York, March 24tb, 1812, 
Gentlemen, 

We have been this afternoon favoured with your Iet= 
ter dated the 23d instant, informing us that the committee of 
the vestry of Trinity Church decline accepting the written 
propositions we made you yesterdaj r , and proposing to us to 
submit to the arbitration of respectable men, to be mutually 
agreed on, all the existing legal differences now subsisting 
between the vestry and Mr. Jones. 

Permit us, gentlemen, to remark, that we have, in our let- 
ter to the vestry, already had the honor to propose to them 
to submit all questions and differences subsisting between 
them and our constituents, (including those existing between 
ihe vestry and Mr. Jones) to the arbitrament of independent 
and impartial men ; if therefore it be your intention to pro- 
pose to us an arbitration equally extensive, that is, one em- 
bracing all the existing differences before mentioned, we 
hasten to communicate to you our joyful acceptance of it; 
but if you mean to offer an arbitration limited and confined 
to a portion of those controversies, to the exclusion of others 
of them, as the words legal differences seem to imply, then 
we take the liberty of requesting you to specify the particu- 
lar differences or points, to which you propose the arbitration 
should be confined . 



182 

With a sincere desire that we may become the happy insiruv 
ments of reestablishing peace and harmony in our church 
upon just and proper principles, 

We remain, gentlemen, 
\ Your most obedient servants, 

(Signed) THOMAS FARMAR, 
JAMES FARQUHAR, 
PETER MESIER, 
PETER JAY MUNRO. 
As the committee of which we are the organs will meet, 
lb-morrow evening, we request to be favoured with your an- 
swer in season to be laid before them. 

Letter from the Committee of the Vestry 

March 25tb, 1812. 

Gentlemen, 

We have received your letter of last evening, desiring 
our explanation of the term legal differences, used in our com- 
munication of yesterday. We used that term to designate, 
without a minute enumeration of particulars, those matters 
which we think the proper subjects of an arbitration. We in- 
tended to submit every thing which could properly be discussed 
in a court of justice in any suit between Mr. Jones and the 
vestry: and the better to enable the arbitrators to make a final 
and satisfactory arrangement, we now beg leave further to 
propose, that if they should think the proceedings heretofore 
had against Mr. Jones illegal, they shall then proceed to make 
such award as under existing circumstances shall appear to 
them best calculated to do justice to the parties in difference, 
and to promote the peace and harmony of the church. 

If (as we trust you will) you should accede to our offer, we 
would then further propose, that the persons to be selected as 
arbitrators should be gentlemen of distinction either of the 
clerical or legal professions. If you should think any matters 
proper for arbitration are improperly excluded by the genera] 
description we have used, we beg you will have the goodness 



i&3 

to' specify particularly the points which you wish the arbitra- 
tor^ to decide. 

We are, gentlemen, 

Your very obedient servants, 
(Signed) DAVID M. CLARKSONV 
WILLIAM BAYARD, 
T. L. OGDEN, 
PETER AUGUSTUS JAY. 

*To the Committee of the Vestry. 

March 27th, 18 12, 
Gentlemen, 

We acknowledge the receipt of your communication 
©f the 25th instant, consenting to submit to arbitration every 
thing which could be properly discussed in a court of justice 
between Mr. Jones and the yestry. We accede to this pro- 
posal, with the following explanations of our understanding of 
it, viz. That the arbitrators shall decide upon the legality 
of the proceedings and sentence of the convocation against 
Mr. Jones; that we shall be at liberty to impeach their vali- 
dity for any cause which the arbitrators may deem sufficient 
to render them invalid; that if the arbitrators shall decide 
that the sentence is illegal, then Mr. Jones shall retain his 
office of assistant minister of Trinity Church, with the usual 
emoluments as heretofore; and that if they shall adjudge the 
sentence to be legal, then they shall determine the terms upon 
which he shall resign that office. It is also understood that 
there shall be no technical objections to the contract between 
the vestry and Mr. Jones for want of the corporation seal. 
We are, gentlemen, &c. 

(Signed) T. FARMAR, 

J. FARQUHAR, 
P. MESIER, 
P. J. MUNRO. 

From the Committee of the Vestry. 

March 2J3tb, 1812. 

Ctentlemen, 

We have had the pleasure of receiving your letter of 
last evening, acceding to ihe proposals we have made for an 



184 

arbitration, with certain explanations of your understanding 
of it. In those explanations we concur with you, except as 
to one point, concerning which, we are not certain that we 
rightly apprehend your meaning : we therefore think it right 
to add, that if the arbitrators shall decide that the sentence 
against Mr. Jones is illegal, then the vestry are to consider 
Mr. Jones as holding precisely the same office that he held 
before any difference existed between him and them, and by 
the same tenure, and that with respect to emoluments, his 
rights shall be exactly what they were. 

It would seem to us, that if the legality of the sentence 
should be established, it ought to be final in relation to Mr. 
Jones's compensation as well as to the propriety of dissolving 
hjs connection with the vestry ; but in as much as Mr. Jones 
was not heard on that subject before the convocation, we are 
willing to wave any advantage the vestry might derive from 
that sentence in regard to the amount of Mr. Jones's compen- 
sation, and to leave that subject to be decided by the arbitra- 
tors. And we think that the want of the corporation seal to 
the contract between the vestry and Mr. Jones is a circum- 
stance of which no advantage ought to be taken. 
We are, gentlemen, 

Your obedient servants, 
(Signed) DAVID M. CLARKSON, 
WILLIAM BAYARD, 
T. L. OGDEN, 
PETER AUGUSTUS JAY. 
P. S. As the vestry will meet at 4 o'clock this afternoon^ 
we will be obliged to you for an answer before that time. 

To the Committee of the Vestry. 

New-York, March 2$th, 1812. 
Gentlemen, 

We have received with great satisfaction your com- 
munication of this date. 



185 

Your understanding of the explanation contained in our 
letter of last evening is correct ; we presume therefore that 
the selection of arbitrators is all that remains to be done. 
We are, gentlemen, 

Your most obedient servants. 
(Signed) THOMAS FARMAR, 
JAMES FARQUHAR, 
PETER JAY MUNRO, 
PETER MESIER. 

Copy of a letter from Bishop Hob art to the Rev. Mr. Judd. 

New- York, February 26, 1812. 
Rev. and dear sir, 

The rev. Mr. How received yesterday your letter of 
the 24th instant, announcing the proceedings of a late con- 
vocation of episcopal clergy of the church in Connecticut. 
It is deemed expedient and respectful to make some remarks 
upon these proceedings in the form of a letter addressed to 
you, and to transmit copies of this letter to several of the 
brethren in your state. That these remarks may therefore 
be the better understood by them, I take the liberty of copy- 
ing your letter to Mr. How, which is as follows : 

Norwalk, February 24, 1812- 
Rev. and dear sir, 

I take the liberty to inform you, that at a convocation 
held in New-Haven on Wednesday last, the clergy of this 
state, deeply feeling the unhappy situation of the church in 
New-York, appointed several of their brethren to visit that 
diocese, and in the spirit of meekness to exhort them to lay 
down their weapons, and to seek for peace. We all sympa- 
thise with them in their affliction ; and believing that when 
one member suffers, all the members must suffer with it, 
think it our duty, to beseech them for the honour and safety 
of the church, to be reconciled to each other. We do not 
presume to dictate to our brethren, but rather in love to en- 
treat them to terminate the unhappy controversy in which 
they have been engaged. With this disposition, several of 
the clergy of this state, will take the liberty to wait ob their 

a a 



±86 

brethren in New- York, on Thursday the 12th day of'Marcfr 
aext, on this painful but important duty. 

YourV affectionately, 

B. JUDD. 

From another quarter we have obtaiaed the information 
that the convocation mentioned in your letter, was specially 
convened by bishop Jarvis for the purpose of taking into con- 
sideration the present situation of the church in this diocese ; 
that an address was delivered by him recommending the 
adopting of some measures for the restoration of peace 
and harmony f and that at this convocation, two resolu- 
tions were passed in substance as follows : The first, that 
the clergy in the state should rise at six o'clock every Friday 
morning during lent, to pray in an especial manner for the 
church in New-Nork. The second resolution directed the 
appointment of a committee by the convocation to wait on 
their brethren in New-York, and to counsel them to peace 
and unity. 

You and I, my dear sir, have long been connected in inti- 
mate friendship, and it cannot be necessary for me to make 
professions of my unabated regard. To many of my brethren 
in Connecticut I stand in the same relation, having been 
often associated with them in our ecclesiastical conventions* 
and cherishing for them the sentiments of sincere esteem* 
We all indeed feel confident in the good intentions of Bishop 
Jarvis, and of our brethren, towards us ; and it is this confi- 
dence only which abates the excessively unpleasant feelings 
which the information of your proceedings excited in our 
minds. The tenor of these proceedings, we trust without 
design on your part, strongly sanctions the idea that the cler- 
gy in New-York are engaged in violent personal contests, 
involving no great interests of public or private character, 
and no important and fundamental concerns of the church ; 
and excited and continued by passions, which it is the duty 
of every christian to repress, and which are hazarding the 
honour, the safety, and the peace of the church. In conse- 
quence of this, we are to be exhorted to " peace and unity, 
to lay down our weapons, and to seek for peace, to terminate 



187 

©ur unhappy controversy, and to be reconciled to each other." 
Now we do not think that this is the opinion seriously enter- 
tained of us by our brethren in Connecticut, though this is 
the obvious construction of their proceedings, and of the lan- 
guage of your letter. 

You cannot but be aware that the present controversy ori- 
ginated in a wanton attack, in a printed pamphlet, by the rev* 
Cave Jones, upon the characters of some of the clergy, and 
of one clergyman in particular; that the charges contained 
in his pamphlet, resting as they almost did, on his simple 
affirmation, were proved to be utterly unfounded, by the 
fullest and strongest testimony, and were traced to the most 
unworthy passions. In the indulgence of these passions, the 
individual who was the object of them, was secretly defamed ; 
a systematic plan to destroy his reputation and influence was 
prosecuted; and thus an attempt was made to excite the most 
injurious divisions in the church. You cannot but be aware 
that these charges, so far from being retracted, have been 
renewed with increased bitterness, and backed by others 
more odious in their nature, and virulent in the terms in 
which they are urged. Admitting then that the present con- 
troversy is merely personal, we really know of no precept of 
Christianity, and no dictate of the christian spririt, that en- 
joins or prompts the sacrifice of the dearest rights of charac- 
ter, and the granting of impunity to calumny, by forgiving 
an offending brother, or being reconciled to him, unless " he 
turn and repent." But this is not the most serious or the 
most important aspect which this business presents. Culpa- 
ble as this attack was deemed upon private character, and 
upon the authority, honour and peace of the church, no 
steps were taken for the trial or punishment of the offender, 
in a case where his condemnation must Jiave been inevitable, 
and his punishment exemplary. The vestry of Trinity 
Church, however, exercising an undoubted right, and an im- 
portant duty, with very great unanimity, judged the dissolu- 
tion of the connection between this individual and Trinity 
Church, of which he was an assistant minister, to be indis- 
pensable to the peace and prosperity of the church. The 
course pointed out by the canons was deliberately, regularly 



188 

and solemnly pursued, and the decision of the authority of 
the church, in due form was made. This decision was the 
signal for the most virulent attack upon the bishop and pres- 
byters who pronounced it. Persons, who from the forbear- 
ance which had been practised, had become partizans, with 
only a partial view of the subject, were excited by the cry 
of persecution. This cry, which vibrates on so many feel- 
ings of the human heart, engaged some new adherents. — 
Views influenced in a greater or less degree by prejudice, by 
personal pique and enmity, or by jealous and sordid conside- 
rations arising out of the local circumstances of Trinity 
Church enlisted some more partizans. A systematic plan 
for the subversion of the decisions of the church, and for the 
impeachment of the acknowledged jurisdiction of its bishop 
was organized. The publication of another pamphlet by Mr. 
.Tones, who had contumaciously contemned that jurisdiction 
and its decisions, abusing in the most violent terms his bishop, 
Ms fellow presbyters, and the vestry of Trinity Church, was 
the signal for an attack upon their public and private charac- 
ters in a newspaper. In this newspaper, under the avowed in- 
Huence and control of his friends, Mr. Jones appeared in his 
own name! and one of the principal authors of the ribal- 
dry, invective and slander, which for months have rilled its 
columns, is a degraded clergyman of our church. By this 
newspaper, and by other arts, were the people inflamed and 
prepared for a public meeting; in which the characters of 
some of the clergy were attacked, and resolutions passed, 
highly censurable both in matter and language, arraigning 
the legality and justice of the proceedings against Mr. Jones; 
and many persons were put on the board appointed by this 
meeting, without their consent. Thus it is evident that the 
differences here are not of a nature merely private and per- 
sonal. They involve the fundamental interests of the church, 
and the contest is between the authority of the church exer- 
cised legally and canonically, and supported by almost all 
the clergy of the state, and beyond all comparison, the largest 
proportion of the laity, and individuals who have engaged in 
the most violent and unprincipled means to subvert this au- 
thority. Judge then our astonishment when we find this ini- 



189 

portant fact, without design we trust, unnoticed by our breth- 
ren in Connecticut; and those who exercise and support the 
authority and discipline of the church, committed to them by 
the divine head, are placed on the same ground with the in- 
dividual who commenced and continues these outrages, and 
those who support him ; and they are mutually exhorted to 
peace and amity. The administrators of the laws are ex- 
horted to be reconciled with those who are in contumacious 
rebellion against them, " to lay down their weapons, to ter- 
minate their unhappy controversy, and to seek for peace." 

But this is not the most important, nor the most unpleasant 
view of the subject. The church in this diocese, like the 
church in every other, is competent to the management of its 
own concerns, and the administration of her discipline. 
Cherishing for her sister churches that warm affection which, 
as the members of the same divine body, she owes them, she 
can, however, acknowledge no right in them to interfere with 
her concerns, except when they are associated with her, under 
the provisions of the constitution, in the general ecclesiasti- 
cal convention; ancWftera, only so far as respects general laws 
equally operating. Such an interference would be the fruit- 
ful source of jealousy, of intrigue, of dissention, and of other 
evils fatal to the union and honour of the church, which in 
the fourth article directs that every bishop shall confine the 
exercise of his office to his own diocese, except when request- 
ed by a state destitute of a bishop, and one of the canons 
prevents a congregation or minister in one diocese from be- 
ing connected with the convention of any other diocese. 
These provisions all aim at the preservation of the indepen- 
dency of the diocesan authority. The interference then of 
the church in one diocese with the concerns of another, even 
by the expression of an opinion or the offer of counsel, unso- 
licited, is a matter inexpressibly delicate, founded also, as 
such an opinion generally must be, on very imperfect and 
partial views. We cannot but consider the late proceedings 
in Connecticut, as in some degree liable to this charge of in- 
terference. The convocation appears to have been called for 
the special purpose of deliberating upon the state of the 
church in this diocese; and resolutions were passed, which 



190 

are indirectly calculated to weaken the discipline and au- 
thority of the church, and to degrade it in the view of the 
world, by considering the disputes consequent upon the ex- 
ercise of that authority as merely personal; and by classing 
those who exercise it with those who oppose it, and counsell- 
ing them both to seek for peace. Much as we respect and 
value our brethren in Connecticut, and highly as we appre- 
ciate their motives, this is an interference which our own 
rights, our own honour, and the interest of the church in 
general, and our own in p&rticu\a.Y, forbid us ever to admit. 

For the honour of the church we have no fears, as far as 
depends upon those who exercise its authority. For the dis- 
grace which others bring upon it, we cannot be accountable, 
JNor are we apprehensive of the safety of the church. Assure 
our brethren in Connecticut, that of near fifty clergy in the 
diocese there are scarcely six who are not united in affection 
as they are in sentiment, and determined by the blessing of 
God, " through evil report and through good report," whether 
supported or discourged by their brethren elsewhere, to pre- 
serve, as far as depends upon them, the authority of the 
church from disgrace and subversion; and we have the cor- 
dial co-operation and support of the great body of the laity, 
and of those in particular who have long been most actively 
engaged in the concerns of the church. 

We are not insensible to the affectionate sympathy of our 
brethren in Connecticut; and when that sympathy shall be 
directed to those, who through unusual difficulty and unpar- 
alleled outrage, are exercising and defending the authority of 
the church, the assurance of their sympathy and cordial sup- 
port will be most respectfully received and valued. 

Such sympathy and such support, we recollect, were given 
to the church in Connecticut on an occasion when its disci- 
pline was threatened. The individual who writes this letter, 
attended, by request, a convocation at Stamford, and gave his 
best aid, small as it may have been, to the authority of the 
church in Connecticut in its contest with a degraded clergy- 
man. In every general convention the deputies from New- 
York took an active and efficient part in favour of that au- 
thority ; and one of them, the individual who now addresses 



you, was particularly decided in his support. Whatever 
opinion may have been given by the bishops on the subject 
of a certain declaration, officially made by them concerning 
Ammi Rogers, was in consequence of a request and an appli- 
cation for this purpose from the bishop in Connecticut. But 
when Mr. Rogers was rending the peace of the church in 
that state, organizing opposition to its authority, and assail- 
ing the private and public character of the bishop and clergy, 
had a convocation unsolicited by the church there, been call- 
ed in New-York to consider the situation of the church in 
Connecticut; and had this convocation passed resolutions 
and appointed a committee, exhorting the authority of the 
church in that state to peace and amity > to terminate their un- 
happy controversy, to lay down their weapons of warfare with 
Ammi Rogers and his adherents, and to seek to he reconciled to 
him; we hardly think our interference would have been re- 
garded without astonishment or without feelings bordering 
on momentary displeasure. 

We indeed need the prayers of our brethren in Connecti- 
cut; and we trust that when they pray for the peace of our 
Zion, it will be for a peace which secures the authority, the 
order, and the honour of the mystical body of Christ; and 
we hope that they will add the prayer, that the bishop and 
their brethren here, may have grace " to do as well as to 
suffer the will of God;" and while they " so minister disci- 
pline as to forget not mercy," may " be so merciful as not 
to be too remiss" 

The sentiments expressed in this letter, are sanctioned by 
bishop Moore and several of his clergy in the city; and 
we have no doubt would receive the sanction, with very 
few exceptions,, of the presbyters and clergy throughout the 
diocese. 

Believe, my dear sir, that we are sincere in our expres- 
sions of regard and respect for the bishop and brethren in. 
Connecticut, and that I am, 

With real esteem, 

Your's most truly 
(Signed) John Henry Hobart. 

The rev. Bethell Judd- 



192 

Extracts from the Journals of the Vestry of Trinity Church 
produced by agreement. 

8th September, 1800. 
Resolved, that a committee be appointed to inform Mr. 
Hobart, that he will be received as an assistant minister to 
this corporation, on the same terms as to salary as those 
gentlemen already appointed. Messrs. Hamersley, Charlton 
and Gaine were appointed a committee. 
Rev. Sir, 

We are a committee appointed by the vestry of 
Trinity Church, for the purpose of communicating to you 
their wishes for your acceptance of an assistant minister in 
the churches under their care, upon the same terms on 
which the other assistant ministers are placed ; but upon con- 
dition, that you do engage to perform divine service in one 
of the churches on Sunday evenings, until another assist- 
ant minister may be called, who will take a share of that 
duty. 

The vestry have recommended it to the rector, in arrang- 
ing, the duties of the several assistants of the day, to have a 
regard to this additional share required of you. 

(Signed) JOHN CHARLTON, ( r ... 

ANDREW HAMERSLEY, J ^ ommiUee * 

New-York, Sept. 17th 5 1800. 

The Rev. John Jlobart to Dr. John Charlton. 
Sir, 

I take the liberty of informing you, as chairman of 
the committee who presented to me the call from the vestry 
of Trinity Church to the office of an assistant minister, that 
I accept the said office on the terms stated in the call. The 
congregation with which I am at present connected, have 
exerted themselves so much to render my situation comfort- 
able and happy, that I think I cannot with delicacy and 
propriety leave them before the spring, unless they should 
signify to me that they have chosen another minister, and 
are willing to dispense with my services. Permit me, 
through you, sir, to express to the vestry my sensibility to 
the polite and honourable manner in which this business has 
been conducted. The best evidence that I can give of my 



i®3 

feelings, will be an endeavour to act in all cases with fidelity 
and independence, governed only by a sincere regard to the 
sacred dictates of conscience and duty. The station would 
require the judgment and experience of more advanced 
years. I shall have therefore a peculiar claim on the friend- 
ship and counsel of the vestry, on the candour and support of 
the congregation, and on the affectionate advice and aid of 
my superiors and brethren in the ministry. Thus strength- 
ened and supported, while I endeavour faithfully to dis*- 
charge my duty, I trust that I may hope for the presence 
and blessing of Almighty God. With sentiments of sin- 
cere respect for yourself and the committee, and for the 
rector and vestry of the church, 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

(Signed) JOHN HENRY HOBART- 

Dr, Charlton. 

12th January, 1801, 

Resolved, that it is expedient to call without delay ano- 
ther assistant minister, and thereupon the rector nominated 
the rev. Cave Jones as a proper person, which nomination 
being approved of by the board, it was further resolved, that 
Dr. Charlton, Mr. Hamersley, and Mr. Gaine be a commit- 
tee to inform Mr. Jones of his appointment, and that the 
call be on the same terms as that to Mr, Hobart, 

13th July, 1801, 
' Resolved, that the treasurer pay the rev. Mr. Jones one 
hundred pounds (the same donation as granted to Mr. Ho- 
bart) as a compensation for his expences of removing to this 
cjty. 

14th December, 1801, 

Resolved, that the treasurer pay the same donation to 
the clergy for the present year, as was allowed thera the 
last year. 

The assistant ministers of Trinity Church, beg leave to 
call the attention of the vestry to the subject of their sala- 
ries: considerations of delicacy, which have hitherto pre- 
vented them from pressing this subject, now yield to neces- 
sity. They are obliged explicitly to declare, that their sala* 
ries are scarcely adequate, by the exercise of economy? £o 



id! 

their Current expences . any provision for the future exigen- 
cies of their families, to which it is natural for them to look 
with some solicitude, is entirely beyond their reach. They 
conceive that the vestry will not hesitate to admit that 
when a church possesses ample means, it is bound to make 
a full and liberal provision for its clergy. If then a perma- 
nent addition to their salaries, or the providing for them 
houses be deemed inexpedient or impracticable, the income 
of the assistant ministers may be sufficiently enlarged by in- 
creasing the gratuity which is annually voted to them. 

As the liberal dispensers of the ample funds which Provi- 
dence hath put into their hands, it is presumed the vestry- 
will take pleasure in placing their clergy on an honourable 
and independent settlement; acting on this enlarged and 
liberal principle, they will not permit any minute objections 
to influence them in this business. 

The assistant ministers beg leave further to suggest, that 
the annual grant of the gratuity at this season, would for 
many obvious reasons be more convenient than at the com- 
mencement of the winter. They also presume, that they 
may rely on the regular continuance of whatever addition 
may be made to their income. 

The above considerations are submitted with those senti- 
ments of esteem and respect, which the assistant ministers 
are bound to cherish for all the members of the church, and 
particularly for the respectable individuals who compose the 
vestry; and they only further express the hope that a deci- 
sion on this subject may not be protracted, 

(Signed) ABRM. BEACH, 
J. H. HOBART, 
CAVE JONES. 

The rector, church wardens, and vestrymen of Trinity* 
Church. 

May 31, 1802. 

9th June, 1802. 

A representation from the assistant ministers of Trinity 
Church, upon the subject of their salaries, was presented to 
the board and read, whereupon resolved, that the sum of 
two hundred pounds be paid to the rector and each of the 



195 

assistant ministers, and that the farther consideration of the 
said representation be deferred. 

14th April, 1803. 
Resolved, that two hundred and fifty dollars be given to, 
Mr. Hobart, to relieve him from some embarrassments occa- 
sioned by sickness in his family. 

9th June, 1803. 
Resolved, that the treasurer pay the rector and each of the 
assistant ministers, five hundred dollars in addition to their 
annual salaries for the present year. 

10th May, 1804. 
Resolved, that the application of the assistant ministers 
for the increase of their salaries, be referred to Messrs. Le 
Roy, Bayard, Watts, Onderdonk and Rogers. 

14th June, 1804. 
The committee, to whom was referred the application of 
the assistant ministers, reported, that in their opinion an 
addition of two hundred pounds should be made to their 
yearly salaries for the ensuing seven years, so as to make it 
equal to seven hundred pounds per annum. Also, that a 
donation of two hundred pounds be now paid by the trea- 
surer to the rector and each of the assistant clergy. Which 
report was agreed to. 

1st June, 1805. 
Resolved, that similar donations be made to the rector and 
assistant clergy, in addition to their salaries for the present 
year, as were made to them last year. 

12th June, 1806. 
Resolved, that the same allowances to the clergy o^ the 
church, in addition to their salaries, as were made last year, 
be given for the present year. 

11th June, 1807. 
Ordered, that the treasurer pay each of the clergymen of 
this church, the like donation of five hundred dollars, as 
was paid to them last year, 

9th June, 1808. 
Ordered, that the treasurer pay the clergy of this church 
a donation of seven hundred asd fifty dollars each, for the 
present ycar» 



196 

13th July, 1809, 

Ordered, that the treasurer pay to the rector and the 
several assistant clergymen of this church, a donation of 
one thousand dollars each for the present year. 

7th November, 1810. 

Ordered, that the same donations be made to the clergy of 
this church for the present year, as were made last year. 

13th June, 1811. 

The state of the church being under consideration, the 
following resolutions were unanimously adopted : — Resolved, 
that from the circumstances and situation of the congregations 
associated with Trinity Church, it has become expedient that 
the connection between Trinity Church and St. George's 
and St. Paul's chapels be dissolved, and that the said chapels 
be endowed and established as separate churches in like man- 
ner as Grace Church has been established. 

Resolved, that the foregoing resolution be referred to a com- 
mittee to devise and report to the board a plan for carrying 
into effect the objects therein referred to. 

Resolved, that a committee be appointed to take into con- 
sideration the present situation of the church, and to confer 
with the rector and assistant rector upon such matters in re- 
lation to the same as they shall judge proper. 

The board having proceeded by ballot to the choice of a 
committee for the purposes expressed in the second resolu- 
tion, Messrs. King, Harison, Clarkson, Le Roy and Ray- 
mond were duly chosen, and the same persons were there- 
upon appointed a committee for the purposes expressed in 
the last resolution. 

September 5th, 1811. 

A letter addressed to the vestry, by the rev. Mr. Cave 
Jones, was received and read. 

The committee to whom Was referred the resolution of 
the vestry respecting the separation of St. George's and St 
Paul's chapels, and who were appointed to take into consi- 
deration the present situation of the church, made a report 
in the words following : — ■ 

" The committee to whom was referred the resolution of 
■the vestry concerning the separation, of St. George's and 



197 

St. Paul's chapels, and who were likewise instructed to take 
Into their consideration the state of the church, respectfully 
report, 

" That on the former subject they have conferred with 
the committees appointed for this purpose by the congrega- 
tion of St. George's and St. Paul's. In the course of this 
conference they have stated and explained the reasons which 
Juave influenced the vestry to propose a separation, and have 
moreover answered, according to their best discretion, such 
queries as have been made by these committees, respecting 
the endowment of the said chapels, and concerning those 
matters about which information was desired. Hitherto the 
committee have received no definitive communication from 
the committee of the two chapels. Further conferences 
may be deemed requisite, and some time may yet be neces- 
sary to enable these congregations to form a satisfactory de- 
termination. Whenever this shall be done, no time will be 
lost in laying the same before the vestry. 

" On the latter subject referred to the committee, so far as 
the same has been examined, it has been considered under 
two separate heads. The first relating to the inability of 
the rector, and of his assistant to discharge, without help, 
their respective duties; and the second respecting the divi- 
sion, disorder, and other mischiefs which have been pro- 
duced by the publication of the rev. Mr. Jones's book, en- 
titled, " A Solemn Appeal to the Church." 

" First head. — Owing to the severe affliction of the rector, 
it has appeared to the committee, as it has done to the rec- 
tor himself, utterly impossible that he will again be able to 
perform his pastoral duties, they therefore recommend, in 
lieu of the house and compensation heretofore granted to the 
rector, that in future he be allowed a pension of five hundred 
pounds annually. 

" The rev. Dr. Beach, assistant to the rector, having 
signified to the vestry his desire, on account of his advanced 
age, to be assisted and relieved in the performance of his 
duties, the committee recommend, in lieu of the former 
compensation granted to Dr. Beach, that in future he be al- 
lowed a pension at the rate of seven hundred pounds an 



198 

anally; and in case lie keeps a house In town, that there 
moreover be allowed him three hundred pounds annually, to 
enable him to pay the rent thereof. On the subject of addi- 
tional assistance to the clergy, the committee observe, that 
in the present embarrassment of the church, and whilst the 
proposal for the separation of St. George's and St. PauL's 
chapels remains undecided, it will, in their opinion, be ex? 
pedient to defer any arrangement upon this subject. 

" Second head. In respect to the disorderly state of 
Trinity Church and its chapels, proceeding from the misbe- 
haviour before alluded to, of the rev. Mr. Jones, and which 
became the subject of the early animadversion of the vestry, 
the committee are constrained to declare, that in their 
opinion, the peace of the church cannot be re-established, 
so long as the connexion between the vestry and the rev. 
Mr. Jones remains undissolved. 

w Two modes by which the connexion may be dissolved, 
have occurred to the committee : — First, from the nature and 
terms of the engagement between the vestry and the rev. 
Mr. Jones, there can be little doubt that the same may, for 
sufficient cause, at any time be dissolved by either party; it 
being presumed that the canons of the church do not affect 
contracts which had been previously made. Second, the 
thirty-second canon of the general convention of the year 
1808, relates to disagreements between ministers and their 
congregations or vestries, and provides for the dissolution of 
the connexion between them. As the committee have ex- 
pressed their opinion that the connexion with Mr. Jones 
ought to be dissolved, it remains for the vestry solemnly to 
consider and determine, whether a due regard for the peace 
and prosperity of the church, does not require of them, with- 
out delay, to have recourse to the means provided by the 
canons to effect this dissolution. 

(Signed) RUFUS KING, 

RICHARD HARISON, 
DAVID M. CLARKSON, 
ANDREW RAYMOND." 
"Which report being read, and "the first head thereof in 
relation to the state of the church being under consideration, 
it was 



199 

Resolved, that the provision recommended by the said 
committee be granted to the rector and assistant rector, to 
commence from the first of August last, and to be in lieu of 
the provision heretofore allowed them. 

The second head of the said report, in relation to the state 
of the church, being under consideration, the vestry came 
to the following resolution: — 

Whereas differences and controversies exist between the 
rev. Mr. Cave Jones, one of the assistant ministers of this 
church, and this vestry, arising out of the publication, en- 
titled, " A Solemn Appeal to the Church," which are of 
such a nature as cannot be settled between them. 

Resolved therefore, that application representing the 
same be made on the part of this board to the bishop of the 
diocese, pursuant to the thirty-second canon of the general 
convention. 

Thereupon resolved further, that the right reverend the 
bishop of the diocese be, and he hereby is humbly requested 
to take into immediate consideration the subject matter of 
the foregoing resolution, and with the assistance of his pres- 
byters, to proceed therein, according to the direction of the 
said canon* 

Resolved, that the clerk be directed to transmit a copy 
of the foregoing resolutions to the right reverend bishop 
Moore. 

New-York, October 5tb, 1811. 

Whereas certain resolutions of the vestry of Trinity 
Church, in the city of New-York, have been transmitted to 
me, Benjamin Moore, D. D. bishop of the protestant epis- 
copal church, in the state of New-York, which resolutions 
are in the words following, viz. " Whereas differences and 
controversies exist between the rev. Cave Jones, one of 
the assistant ministers of Trinity Church, and this vestry, 
arising out of the publication, entitled, " A Solemn Appeal 
to the Church," which are of such a nature as cannot he 
settled between them, 

Resolved therefore, that application respecting the same 
be made on the part of this board to the bishop of the dioceser 
pursuant to 32d canon of the general convention. 



200 

Therefore resolved further, that the right reverend ths 
bishop of the diocese be, and he hereby is humbly requested 
to take into immediate consideration the subject matter of 
the foregoing resolution, and with the assistance of his pres- 
byters, to proceed therein according to the directions of the 
said canon. 

Resolved, that the clerk be directed to transmit a copy 
of the foregoing resolutions to the right reverend bishop 
Moore, 

Extract from the Minutes. 

T. L. OGDEN, Clerk. 

And whereas a copy of the said resolutions was, on the 
7 th of September last, by me furnished to the said rev. 
Cave Jones, and thereupon the said Cave Jones presented 
to me a remonstrance against any proceedings being had 
against him under the said canon, upon the said application 
of the said vestry, as by a reference to the said remonstrance, 
a copy whereof is hereunto annexed, may appear; and 
whereas after a communication of the said remonstrance to 
the said vestry, the said vestry hath requested me to pro- 
ceed under the said canon, and I having determined so to 
proceed, the said application appearing to me to be one that 
comes within the purview of the said canon. And whereas 
reasonable notice in writing has been served upon the said 
Cave Jones, on the 16th day of October, jn the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven, aforesaid, to 
appear before me and my presbyters on the 5th day of No= 
vember, in the said year, at the hour of 12 o'clock, at No, 
20 Robinson-street, to shew if any thing he has to say on 
his part in relation to the said application and case of con- 
troversy, at which time and place, we the said bishop and 
his presbyters, who have subscribed these presents, were 
duly assembled, and the said Cave Jones appeared, and was 
by us fully heard in relation to the said application and case 
of controversy, and thereupon we the said bishop and pres- 
byters having advised together, it appears to us that the 
controversy between the rev. Cave Jones, one of the as? 
srstant ministers of Trinity Churchy in the city of New- 



£01 



York, and the vestry of said church, has proceeded siicfa 
lengths as to preclude all hope of a favourable termination, 
and that a dissolution of the connection is indispensably 
necessary to restore the peace, and promote the prosperity 
of the church : Therefore, agreeably to the authority vested 
in us by the 32d canon of the general convention of the pro- 
testant episcopal church, we do recommend to the rev* 
Cave Jones, one of the assistant ministers of Trinity Church, 
New-York* to relinquish immediately his title to the said 
office of assistant minister on the following conditions, viz. 
that the vestry of said church pay the rev. Cave Jones the 
balance of his salary, which may be due on this day, and 
within thirty days thereafter, the sum of one thousand 
pounds. And should the said minister or vestry refuse t& 
comply with the recommendation and conditions aforesaid, 
with the concurrence of my presbyters, the penalties of the 
canon aforesaid, with respect to the party or parties refusing, 
shall be carried into full effect. Witness our hands this 5th 
vf November, 1811. 

(Signed) EENJ. MOORE, bishop of the 

protestant episcopal church in 
the state of New-York 3 
ISAAC WILKINS, 
THEODo BARTOW, 
JOS. BOWDEN, 
ES. COOPER, 
DAVENPORT PHELPS, 
JOSEPH PRENTICE, 
JOHN REED, 
N. BOWEN, 
THO. LYELL, 
JONATHAN JUDD 9 
SETH HART, 
BARZILLAI BULKLEY, 
THOMAS Y. HOWo 
Resolved, that the clerk of this convocation is hereby 
ordered to deliver forthwith one of the foregoing instruments 
to the rev. Cave Jones, and another to the vestry of Trinitj 
Church, and to require their answer in. writing to the same, 

cc 



30# 

iddressed to the right reverend bishop Moore, at No. 2G» 
Robinson-street, at or before I o'clock P. M. to-morrow, and 
to inform the parties respectively, that a failure to answer 
will be considered as a refusal, by the party so failing, to 
comply with the terms of the recommendation of the bishop 
and his. presbyters. 

Extract from the minutes of the proceeding* 
of the convocation. 

(Signed) THO. LYELL, clerk. 

Extract frGm the minutes of the vestry of Trinity Church, at 
a meeting had on ike 1 2ih December , 1 8J I . 

The appointment of an assistant minister being under con- 
sideration, the following resolutions were adopted. 

Resolved, that the assistant ministers employed by this 
corporation (other than the assistant rector) are considered 
as holding their offices during the pleasure of the vestry. 

Resolved, that the vestry do now proceed to the appoint-? 
ment of an assistant minister to hold his office in conformity 
with the principle expressed in the foregoing resolution, and 
to be placed, in respect to salary, upon the footing of the 
other assistant ministers now employed by this corporation. 

The assistant rector having nominated the rev. William 
Berrian as an assistant minister of this church, 

Thereupon resolved, that the said nomination be ap- 
prored, and that the clerk be directed to transmit to the 
rev. Mr. Berriaii a copy of this and the two preceding reso- 
lutions,, 

9th April, 1812. 

Upon the report of the committee on the state of the 
church, ordered, that a donation of six hundred pounds be 
granted to the right reverend bishop Hobart, the rev. Mr.. 
How r , and the rev. Mr. Berrian for the year commencing 
on the first day of June next, in aid of their stated salaries^ 
and no donations having been granted for the last year, that 
an allowance equivalent to eleven hundred pounds per an- 
mum, be made good to them up to the said first day of June 
next, and also to the rev. Dr. Beach, up to the date of t]if 
existing arrangement between him and the, vestry. 



20$ 

7th December, 181 2. 
Upon reading a letter addressed to the vestry by the rev, 
fttr. How, stating that by reason of extraordinary expences 
incurred by the removal of his family to this city, and by 
sickness, with which it has since been afflicted, he had con- 
tracted debts which he was unable to discharge without the 
aid of the vestry; it was resolved, that in consideration of 
these circumstances, the sum of live hundred dollars be now 
paid to the rev. Mr. How as a donation* 



New-Ywk, ss. J-ohn Clark, of the city of New- York, 
gentleman, a witness produced on the part of the defendants, 
being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he was a member 
of the vestry of Trinity Church when the plaintiff was called 
an assistant minister in that church, and continued so until 
April 1812, when the deponent ceased to be a member of the 
corporation of Trinity Church. The deponent knew the 
plaintiff before he left this city to go to the southward, which 
Was several years before he was called to Trinity Church; 
after the plaintiff was so called, and had returned to the 
city of New- York, and within one year thereafter, he gave 
the deponent to understand, in conversation, that Dr. Ho- 
bart and he did not agree. The plaintiff did not charge 
Dr. Hobart with any thing in particular; but insinuated that 
Dr. Hobart was disposed to take too much upon himself^ 
and the deponent thought, from all that passed between him 
and the plaintiff, that there was a jealousy on his part res- 
pecting Dr. Hobart. The plaintiff was in habits of intimacy 
in the family of the deponent, and used frequently to visit in 
it, shortly after his settlement in Trinity Church, and for 
several years thereafter, and until shortly before the publica- 
tion of the plaintiff's book, and had frequent conversations 
With the deponent on the subject of Dr. Hobart, which 
were always introduced by the plaintiff, and all tended to 
convince the deponent that there was a jealousy on the part 
of the plaintiff towards Dr. Hobart. The deponent says, 
that Dr» Hobart, between the settlement of the plaintiff in 



204 

Trinity Church and the publication of his appeal, was als$ 
in the habit of visiting in the family of the deponent, but 
ike deponent never heard Dr. Hobart, during that time, 
speak disrespectfully of the plaintiff, or insinuate any thing 
against him; but on the contrary, he always spoke of the 
plaintiff in a respectful and friendly manner. The plaintiff 
showed to the deponent a copy of a letter which he had 
written to Dr. Hobart. The deponent told the plaintiff that 
he thought that he, the plaintiff, had better be quiet ; that 
his situation was a very comfortable one; that words were 
not blows; and that the difference between him and Dr. Ho= 
bart could be made up between themselves; and that the 
plaintiff replied, that he would proceed against Dr. Hobart 
as he, the plaintiff, had begun, in order to justify himself; 
and that shortly after, the book of the plaintiff appeared. 
The ftfeponent thought, from all that passed at that time be- 
tween the plaintiff and him, that it was his intention to 
bring about a public investigation of the conduct of Dr. Ho- 
bart in relation to him, the plaintiff. The plaintiff's book 
produced a controversy between him and the vestry of 
Trinity Church, which was not settled until after the pro- 
ceedings against the plaintiff before the bishop and the pres- 
byters. The publication of the plaintiff's book produced 
very great disturbance among the different congregations 
connected with Trinity Church, some taking side with the 
plaintiff and some against him; producing difference and 
contention in families; and in some instances between men 
and their wives; that these differences induced some to re- 
fuse to hear the plaintiff preach, and a few, comparatively, 
to refuse to hear Br* Hobart. The deponent was in the 
vestry at the time a gratuity of live hundred dollars a year 
formerly made by Trinity Church to Dr. Harris was discon- 
tinued; that the last time that such gratuity was granted, it 
was the subject of considerable debate and diversity of 
opinion ; that subsequent to that time, and previous to the 
discontinuance of it, Dr. Harris had been elected president 
of the college ; and that this circumstance was given as the 
reason of the discontinuance in the vestry at the time, it 
bejng mentioned, that Dr., Harris's salary and perquisites^ gs 



205 

president, was equal or more than the gratuity he had re* 
ceived from Trinity Church. 

The deponent, on being cross-examined, says, that what 
he means by saying that the publication of the plaintiff's 
book produced a controversy between him and the vestry, is, 
that the vestry were displeased with it. The deponent says 
that he knows from conversation with members of the com= 
mitt.ee, to whom the plaintiff's book was referred, imme- 
diately after their report, that it was intended to take fur- 
ther measures in the vestry against the plaintiff. Mr. Ray- 
mond was one of the members of the committee who men- 
tioned this circumstance to the deponent. The deponent did 
not know, before the report of the committee, of which Mr. 
Raymond was a member, that it was intended to take any 
further steps against the plaintiff. It was proposed in the 
vestry to do so at the time that committee was appointed. 
The deponent believes that there was a proposition to that 
effect made in the vestry, and agreed to, before the report of 
the committee aforesaid; and in short, from the time the 
plaintiff's book first appeared. Until the reference to the 
bishop, there was always an intention in the vestry, as the 
deponent understood, to investigate the business. There is 
no circumstance, within the deponent's recollection, that 
enables him to fix the time of his first conversations with 
the plaintiff on the subject of Dr. Hobart to be within the 
first year of the plaintiff's settlement; but the deponent 
speaks of the time from his general recollection. The de- 
ponent was in the habit, at that time, of conversing freely 
with the plaintiff on the state of the church, which conver- 
sations were sometimes introduced by the deponent, and the 
remarks made by the plaintiff on Dr. Hobart usually grew 
out of such conversations. He thinks he is more distinct in 
his recollection of the time when these conversations were 
first had between the plaintiff and him, than he is of the 
circumstance that passed in the vestry respecting the plain- 
tiff. He does not remember the time when the plaintiff was 
called, but it was the spring after Dr. Hobart, who was. 
vailed the preceding fall, 



2i06 

JYew~York, ss. Thomas Gibbons, of the city of Nei*.< 
York, a witness on the part of the defendants, being duly 
sworn, deposeth and saith, that he was a delegate from St. 
Stephen's Church to the state convention which met at 
Poughkeepsie in 1805, went up on board of the same vessel 
with the plaintiff; and while on board, he heard a conversa- 
tion among the clergy, at which Dr. Harris and Mr. Stre- 
beck were present, respecting putting Dr. Hobart out of the 
office of secretary of the convention, and putting the plain- 
tiff in his place : he does not remember whether the plaintiff 
was, or was not present at that conversation; he recollects 
that one of the clergy solicited his vote for the plaintiff; but 
who particularly lie does not remember; who observed to 
the deponent, that the plaintiff had been kept back long 
enough; and that it was high time that he should be brought 
forward. Dr. Harris and Mr. Strebeck appeared to be on 
very intimate and friendly terms with the plaintiff; they 
Were frequently hi conversation together. 

On being cross-examined, he says, that he did not get up 
io the convention, and he did not hear of any electioneering 
among the clergy, except what he heard on board the vessel, 
as before stated. The plaintiff, Mr. Strebeck, and others, 
left the vessel before she arrived at Poughkeepsie, and went up 
by land, as the deponent understood; and further he saith not 

New-York, ss* Cornelius Schuyler, of the cily of 
New-York, a witness on the part of the defendants, being 
duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he was for seven years, 
immediately preceding the present year, one of the church- 
wardens of St. Stephen's Church, in the city of New-York^ 
he was a delegate to the state convention which met at 
Poughkeepsie in 1805; he went up the North River, in com- 
pany with the plaintiff and Mr. Strebeck, to attend the con- 
rention, and heard a conversation between them, in which 
the plaintiff said, " why should Dr. Hobart be secretary all 
the time;" and further he saith not. 

New-York, ss. James Gillender of the city of New- 
York, a witness produced by the defendants, being duly 



a^woiD, deposeth and saith that he attended the state con veil? 
tioa of 1807, as a delegate from St. Stephen's Church in this 
city, and on the first day that convention met, the deponent 
was applied to by the rev. Mr. Strebeck, then rector of St. 
Stephen's Church aforesaid, to unite in a scheme to turn Dr. 
Hobart out of the office of secretary of Hie convention, and 
to put the plaintiff in that office ; the deponent understood 
that this request was made by Mr. Strebeck with the concur- 
rence of the plaintiff and his friends ; and the influence of 
the deponent was asked as a favour to the plaintiff. The de- 
ponent says that Mr. Strebeck appeared active to bring about 
the aforesaid change, and had frequent conversations with 
4he plaintilFin the church, immediately before the appointment 
of a secretary. Immediately after the resignation of Mr. 
Strebeck, as rector of St. Stephen's, which was in the spring 
of 1809, as he believes, the plaintiff applied to witness, he 
then being one of the vestry, to use his influence to get Dr. 
R. C. ]VIoore appointed successor to Mr. Strebeck. The plain- 
tiff was very solicitous for the immediate appointment of Dr„ 
Moore ; and upon the deponent's informing him that as he 
had no knowledge of Dr. Moore, he must be governed by in- 
formation which he received of the plaintiff; and stating to 
plaintiff that his wish was to get a person, who was on a friend- 
ly footing with the clergy of Trinity Church, in order that 
they might have the advantage of frequent exchanges with 
them ; the plaintiff observed, that Dr. Moore was on such 
footing ; and that there was not probably a man in the United 
States who in that particular would suit them better; the de-, 
ponent thereupon consented to use his influence, and did suc- 
ceed in obtaining the appointment of Dr. Moore : in the 
course of two months thereafter, the deponent discovered 
that Dr. Moore was not on good terms with the clergy of 
Trinity Church, and after frequent conversations and remon* 
strances with Dr. Moore, the deponent discovered that there 
was no probability of any understanding or union taking place 
between him and the clergy of Trinity Church ; he determin- 
ed to decline a re-election in the vestry of St. Stephen's, and 
did so accordingly. He considered himself very much disap- 
pointed and aggrieved by the representations of the plaintiff 



20$ 

respecting the situation of Dr. Moore with the clergy of Tri- 
nity Church. 

On being cross examined he says, that in 1807 he was 
slightly acquainted with the plaintiff, and that he never had 
any conversation with him on the subject of turning Dr. Ho- 
bart out of the office of secretary of the convention, does not 
recollect how many votes were given against Dr. Hobart at 
that election ; does not think that the opposition was given 
up before they went into the ballot, but cannot say, whether 
or not. He says, that it is usual for the clergymen during 
the sitting of the convention, to have private conversations 
with each other; he thinks, that the conversations between 
the plaintiff and Mr. Strebeck before mentioned, were more 
frequent than is usual among clergymen in the convention. 
During the ministry of Mr. Strebeck, the deponent recollects 
to have had one conversation in company with one of the 
vestrymen of St. Stephen's Church with the plaintiff on the 
subject of the affairs of that church ; he might have had 
other conversations on the same subject with the plaintiff, 
but he does not recollect. After Mr. Strebeck's resignation, 
and Dr. Moore's acceptance of the rectorship of St. Stephen's 
Church, but before Dr. Moore took possession, the plaintiff 
frequently officiated there. He does not remember that the 
plaintiff mentioned to him that Dr. Moore had a call to Bal- 
timore, when he said that there was no time to be lost, but 
deponent recollects to have heard that fact stated after the 
call from St. Stephen's had been presented to Dr. Moore. 
Witness had understood and believes that there was a differ- 
ence between Dr. Moore and some of the clergy of Trinity 
Church, before his removal from Staten Island, and has un- 
derstood from Dr. Moore himself, that a difference subsisted 
before that time between him and Dr. Hobart. He has un- 
derstood that the cause of difference between Dr. Moore and 
the clergy of Trinity Church, since Dr. Moore's removal to 
the city, was his interference with the concerns of other con- 
gregations and the mode of conducting his own; what he 
means by Dr. Moore's interference with congregations of 
other churches is, that he understood from Mr. Lyell, and ho 
believes from most of the clergy of Trinity Church, that Di% 



209 

Moore had had a meeting with the members of Christ's 
Church, at the house of a Mr. Scott, as he believes, and that 
on the next communion service in St. Stephen's very many 
of those persons attended ; he had not heard that they had 
given a previous notice to Mr. Lyell, that they would with- 
draw from his congregation; he heard this from bishop Ho- 
bart and Mr. Eow also, and none others. The objection 
made to the mode of Dr. Moore's conducting the affairs of 
his own church, as the deponent understood, was his refusing 
to officiate in his own church on week-days, instead of attend- 
ing society meetings at private houses, against which prac- 
tice many of the vestry had remonstrated and deponent 
amongst the rest. Witness does not know that either of the 
aforesaid causes of complaint existed before Dr. Moore left 
Staten Island; there may have been similar complaints in the 
congregation of Staten Island, but witness knows nothing of 
it. The plaintiff requested Dr. Moore in the hearing of the 
deponent to discontinue the society meetings, when Dr. 
"Moore said, that he would lay the matter fairly before the 
bishop, and that if he directed him to discontinue them he 
would, otherwise he would not, and that if any blame should 
attach, in consequence, the bishop must bear it. The depo- 
nent mentioned this circumstance to the bishop's brother, 
Dr. William Moore, and requested him to call on the bishop 
and inform him of the intended visit of Dr. R. C. Moore, and 
to put him on his guard, as the deponent apprehended that it 
was the intention of Dr. R. C. Moore to involve bishop 
Moore in difficulty, by throwing the blame of the prohibition 
on him. He says that St. Stephen's Church lias prospered 
nnder the ministry of Dr. Moore, as much as the represen- 
tation of the plaintiff would warrant, but that Dr. Moore's 
standing with the clergy of Trinity Church, was not such as 
was represented by the plaintiff. The congregation of St. 
Stephen's is very numerous, most of them have joined since 
the commencement of Dr. Moore's ministry. 

On being re-examined by the defendants he says, that he 
understood one cause of complaint against Dr. Moore, on the 
part of the clergy of Trinity Church, was Ms not using the 
common prayer book at society meetings, and being in the 



2±Q 

imhii of extemporary prayer on those occasions, which fftff 
disagreeable to a majority of his vestry at that time; and 
against the opinion of the plaintiff as deponent understood 
from the plaintiff himself, and further the deponent saith not 

New-York, ss. Richard Kingsland, of the city of New- 
York, a witness produced by the defendants, being duly sworn, 
and examined by Dr. How in the absence of the defendants' 
counsel — says, that he has from fifteen to twenty years last 
past been a regular attendant at St. Paul's church in New- 
York — that the publication of the plaintiff's book entitled 
" A Solemn Appeal," produced a very strong and general 
dissatisfaction among the members of 'that church, so much 
so, that many left the church when the plaintiff was to offi- 
ciate there, ami among them the deponent and his family. 
The deponent considered the plaintiff's usefulness after the 
publication of his book at an end, and his continuance in 
Trinity Church calculated to disturb the peace, and injure the 
prosperity of it ; and he thinks that this was a very general 
opinion. He voted against Mr. Depeyster as a vestryman, 
and did so because he understood that Mr. Depeyster had 
supported the plaintiff, and endeavoured to uphold him in the 
church against the other part of the vestryv and the deponent 
believes others were influenced to leave Mr. Depeyster off 
for the same reason. The deponent thought the plaintiff'* 
book was produced in consequence of disappointment; that 
its character was disgraceful, and its tendency injurious to 
the interests of the church. He says that Dr. Hobart did 
postpone a reply for a long time. 

On being cross-examined, he says, that he does not know 
of any persons leaving the church when Dr. Hobart and Mr. 
How preached. Mr. How stopt at the deponent's door as 
he was going to a funeral, and said to deponent, that he had 
heard that deponent had said that Mr. Depeyster ought to 
be turned out of the vestry, to which deponent answered*, 
that he thought not only Mr. Depeyster, but all the other? 
who were in favour of the plaintiff, should be turned out. 
Mr. How replied no, that would be going too far; but the 
deponent does not know whether Mr. How meant that turn- 



211 

/ag out Mr. Depeyster would be going too far. He obtained 
his information respecting the part Mr. Depeyster took in the 
Testry from public talk. He never had any conversation witfe 
Dr. Hobart or Mr. How on the subject. He got his ticket 
for vestrymen at Blr. S words' s — Mr. Depeyster' s name was 
on it; he struck it out of several. The deponent does not 
know what his opinion repecting the plaintiff's book would 
have been, if the facts stated therein were true; he thought 
it impossible that they could be true : — and further he saitin 
not. 

New-York, ss. Daniel Kemper, of the city of New-York, 
a witness produced on the part of the defendants, being duly 
sworn, deposftib and saith, that he is now, and has been for 
many years last past a member of Trinity Church, in the city 
of New- York, and regularly attended worship in St. Paul's 
chapel; that a very general disapprobation and dissatisfaction * 
was produced throughout the members of Trinity Church, by g 
the publication of the plaintiff's book, entitled a " Solemn 1 
Appeal," which manifested itself by many declaring that they | 
would not attend the plaintiff's preaching, and others refusing | 
to receive the elements from him at the communion of the supper f 
but passed on to the other officiating clergymen at the other 
side of the altar. The deponent thinks,that from the state of coil 
fusion and dissatisfaction existing in the church in consequence 
of the aforesaid publication, that the plaintiff's usefulness was 
at an end, and such he thinks was the opinion of the majority 
of the congregation. The reason of leaving Frederick De- 
peyster out of the vestry, was the violent part he took in 
the vestry in favour of the plaintiff; — he heard this assigned 
as a reason by many; and also his having charged the vestry 
with withholding a stipend from Dr. Harris, in consequence ol 
the part which he had taken in favour of the plaintiff, which charge 
was believed to be unjust. The deponent considered it essen- 
tial to the peace of the church, that the plaintiff should be sepa- 
rated from Trinity Church. On being cross-examined, he 
says that he had never heard of any difference among the cler- 
gy of Trinity Church, until a short time previous to the pul> 
-licatiou of the plaintiff's book ;•— he did hear that such book 






212 

was coming out; and he remembers to have heard at the time, 
a dissatisfaction expressed by different members of the congre> 
gation at the idea of any book appearing from the plaintiff on 
the subject. Those whom he heard express dissatisfaction 
with the plaintiff's book after it did appear, had read it, as 
he understood "from them, and he the deponent had read it. 
The dissatisfaction was not only on account of the contents 
of the book, but that there should be any book on the subject. 
The deponent, and those persons to whom he has above al- 
luded, thought it wrong for a clergyman under the circum- 
stances in which the plaintiff was, to publish at all ; — he would 
have thought it wrong if the charges contained in the book 
were true. He has read the two pamphlets on this subject, 
written by Dj*. Hobart, one called a letter to the vestry of 
Trinity Church, and the other Dr. Hobart' s statement. He 
heard no dissatisfaction expressed with the appearance of 
either of those pamphlets, and he was not dissatisfied with 
them. It was thought a matter of necessity for Dr. Hobart 
to publish, in order to justify himself against the charges made 
by the plaintiff, but the necessity was regretted. If the charges 
contained in the plaintiff's book were true, the deponent does 
not think that he was justified in publishing by the same ne- 
cessity, nor by any other circumstance stated in his book, 
as the deponent always thought there was authority sufficient 
in the church to settle all controversies ; and also thinks that 
there was sufficient authority in the church to settle any con- 
troversy growing out of the plaintiff's publication; and that 
Dr. Hobart and Mr. How ought to have resorted to that au- 
thority to settle any complaints they had against that publi- 
cation. The deponent heard two or three of the congrega- 
tion say, that they would not go to hear Dr. Hobart and Mr. 
How. He has heard some of the congregation express them- 
selves friendly to the plaintiff. The deponent voted against 
Mr. Depeyster in the election for vestrymen in 1812 — he got 
his ticket and a number of others at Mr. Swords's book-store ; 
the tickets were printed, and Mr. Depeyster's name was on 
it ;— he thinks that he struck it out. It was generally thought 
that there was not, under the existing circumstances, any 
means of preserving the peace of the church but by the se- 






213 

paration of the plaintiff. The deponent does not know what 
the effect would have been if one of the churches had been 
set apart for the plaintiff. 

On being again examined by the defendants, (the questions 
being put by Dr. How, the only counsel on the part of the 
defendants being suddenly called away) the deponent says, 
that he thinks but a very few individuals of any one of the 
congregations of Trinity Church, if separated, would have 
been willing to take the plaintiff as their rector. The plain? 
tiff's book, in reference to its contents, was considered by 
the deponent and many others, a disgraceful and shameful 
publication. Dr. Hobart and Mr. How postponed an answer 
a long while ; and it was the opinion of many of the friends 
of the church that it had become expedient and proper for Dr.; 
Hobart and Mr. How to take public notice of it. The depo-j 
nent frequently heard the. friends of the plaintiff say, that] 
they could not answer the charges, and were afraid to take 
notice of the plaintiff'3 book. The deponent and many 
others, considered the publication of Dr. Hobart and Mr. 
How, in answer to the plaintiff's book, as a defensive act, 
and therefore justifiable ; and their publication removed un- 
pleasant impressions from the minds of many persons in the 
church, who from a want of knowledge of the parties, and 
proper information on the subject of dispute, were in a state 
of uneasiness, and it had the same favourable effect on the 
minds of many others of other denominations. When he 
said in his cross-examination, that he thought Dr. Hobart 
and Mr. How should have applied to the authority of the 
church, he meant, that the whole dispute ought to have been 
decided by the church. The deponent thinks that the pub- 
lication of the plaintiff's book required that he should be 
brought to a public trial, before the authority of the church. 

The deponent being again examined on the part of the 
plaintiff, says, that the doubts before stated to have been re- 
moved by the publication of Dr. Hobart and Mr. How's pam- 
phlet, was in consequence of the deponent and the others before 
referred to, believing that the facts therein stated, were true. 
The facts stated by the plaintiff in his pamphlet were not 
credited. HeTiever made any inquiry respecting the facts 



■stated in either of the publications; but from general con 
versatkms with members of the church, he drew his con- 
, elusions respecting them. He considers both of the pam~ 
I phletsof Dr. Hobart herein before mentioned, as defensive 
? measures. His sister, Mrs. Morton, of the presbyterian church, 
and George Harsin, of the Dutch church, are two of the per- 
sons referred to by him, as belonging to other denominations, 
in whose minds favourable impressions were made by the 
publication of Dr. Hobart's and Mr. How's pamphlet. There 
were others, but he cannot recollect their names ; and being 
asked to endeavour to recollect the name of one other, he 
I -says he cannot Mr. Harsin said, that since he had read 
those publications, the impression made by the plaintiff's 
^pamphlet was in a good measure done away. 

The deponent being again examined on the part of the 

defendants, says, that from what he has heard, and from 

'general report, he is of opinion that those pamphlets had 

a very general and happy effect on the minds of people 

\ of other denominations. The deponent considered many of 

I the most important facts stated in Dr. Hobart's letter to the 

1 vestry as proved by documents accompanying it ; — and further 

lie saith not 

f New-York, ss. Henry Rogers, of the city of New- York, 
• a witness produced on the part of the defendants, being duly 
-sworn, deposeth and saith, he is a member of the episcopal 
church in this city, and was so when the plaintiff's book, en- 
titled " A Solemn Appeal," was published ; it produced a 
very great sensation among the members of the church, as 
far as deponent's observation extended, which was pretty 
general ; and it was supposed by deponent, and most of those 
with whom he conversed belonging to the church, that a sepa- 
ration was indispensable between the plaintiff and Trinity 
Church. He thinks there were many who had strong ob- 
jections to attend the ministrations of the plaintiff after the 
publication of his book ; and that he heard several say, that 
they would leave the church if they saw the plaintiff officiat- 
ing. He thinks that the continuance of the plaintiff in The- 






By Church, after the publication of his book, would have 
proved ruinous to the peace of the church. 

On being cross examined, he says, that he attends public 
worship at Grace Church, and did so when the plaintiff's 
book was published, and has ever since. Grace Church is 
not connected with Trinity, but is separate and distinct. The 
sensation he has before spoken of as existing among the mem- 
bers of Trinity Church, was a conviction on their minds that 
there could not be any longer harmony between the clergy 
and the plaintiff after the publication of his book. The depo- 
nent says, that as far as he is informed, the opinions of the 
persons to whom he has before referred, were formed inde- 
pendent of the consideration whether the facts stated by the 
plaintiff were true or false, as they considered the facts trifling 
in themselves, and that they had been treasured up by the« 
plaintiff to be made use of as he should find occasion. Per- 
haps he may have heard one or two of the members of Trim- i 
ty Church say, that they would not attend the ministrations 
of Dr. Hobart; and it may be also that Mr. How was includ- 
ed, but he cannot be precise or certain. He thinks he has 
heard Mrs. Hoffman, Mrs. Startin, N. Rogers and his wife, Mr. 
Swords, Mr. Kemper, Mr. Underhill, and a great number of 
others, whom he" is not able to mention by name, say that 
they would not attend upon the ministrations of the plaintiff; 
he says that he is not absolutely certain that he heard any 
one of those he had named refuse to attend the ministration 
of the plaintiff, but such is his impression- The opinion of 
the deponent respecting the tendency or effect of the plain- 
tiff's publication, does not depend upon the truth or falsehood 
of the facts contained in it, but that it was calculated to 
break up the peace and harmony of the church ; as he thinks 
the members of the church could not associate with one who 
treasured up what was said in private conversation for the 
purpose of publishing it ; and he has heard this opinion ex- 
pressed by many belonging to Trinity Church. The depo- 
nent says, that he has had repeated conversations with Mr. 
How on the subject of the plaintiff; he has heard him use 
very strong expressions as applied to the conduct of the 
plaintiff; and he thinks he has heard Mr. How say, that the 



216 

plaintiff had behaved in this transaction, as a rascal or a 
scoundrel, or some equivalent expressions; and he has heard 
others speak of the conduct of the plaintiff in terms of strong 
indignation — but does not recollect any other who made use 
of the same, or equivalent terms to those above mentioned ; 
and that he never heard a clergyman speak of the aforesaid 
conduct of the plaintiff, but in terms of strong indignation. 
The clergymen whom he has heard speak on this subject, 
and to whom he refers, are Mr. Bowen, bishop Hobart, Mr. 
Berrian, Mr. Lyell, and he thinks Dr. Bowden. Soon after 
the appearance of the plaintiff's book, the deponent had a 
conversation with Dr. Beach respecting theplaintiff's book, and 
observed, that he thought that the plaintiff's book would break 
up the peace of the church; and that the plaintiff ought not 

$ afterwards to be permitted to go into the church, meaning 
thereby to officiate as a minister; to which Dr. Beach repli- 

t ed, that he disapproved of the plaintiff's publication as much 
as deponent did. He cannot be particular as to the times 
when he had conversations with any of the aforesaid gentle- 
men on the subject of the plaintiff's book, but he thinks it 
probable that he did converse with some, or all of them, with- 
in three months after the publication. 

Being again examined by the defendants, he says, that 
Mr. How was very intimate in the family of deponent, and 
was in the habit of unreserved communication, which depo- 
nent always considered as confidential. And further he saith 
not. 

Nov-York, ss. Alexander Ogsbury, of the city of 
New-York, a witness produced by the defendants, being 
duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he has been a member 
of Trinity Church for upwards of fifty years. The publica- 
tion of the plaintiff's book, entitled, " A Solemn Appeal," 
created great difference and disturbance among the members 
of that church immediately after its appearance; and that as 
for himself, he could not either sleep or eat; and he could 
not hear the plaintiff preach with the same composure or sa- 
tisfaction that he had formerly done ; and he knows that a 
similar effect was produced on the minds of others; he has 



217 

frequently heard the enquiry made on his way to St* Paul's, 
where he usually attends, whether the plaintiff was to preach 
there ; and has known several, at different times, when the 
plaintiff was to preach in St. Paul's, leave that church and 
go to other churches ; deponent himself did not and could 
not take the sacrament when the plaintiff officiated, and he 
knows that this was the case with several others. The de- 
ponent thought it necessary for the peace of that church, 
that the plaintiff should be separated from it. 

On being cross-examined, the deponent says, that on the 
25 th of the present month he will be seventy-seven years 
of age. Among the persons referred to by him, as refusing 
to attend upon the ministration of the plaintiff, he recollects 
the widow Mann and his wife; he cannot remember the 
names of any others; he has heard several enquire whether 
the plaintiff was to preach, whose names he never did know. 
The influence produced on the mind of the deponent, and as 
for as he knows, on the minds of others, by the plaintiff's 
book, did not depend upon the truth or falsehood of the state- 
ment, but from the circumstance of its being calculated and 
designed, as deponent believed, to produce confusion in the 
church. He says, that bishop Hobart and Dr. How had 
some slight conversations with him, at his own house, on 
the subject of the plaintiff's book, shortly after it appeared, 
which he thinks were produced by his the deponent's com- 
plaining of it ; and these gentlemen used to observe that the 
subject was disagreeable, and it was dropped. He never 
heard any members of the church express dissatisfaction with 
bishop Hobart and Dr. How. The deponent has heard Ben- 
jamin Haight, who worshipped at St. Paul's, find fault with 
bishop Hobart and Dr. How on account of their conduct to 
the plaintiff, but he cannot remember the particulars. He 
has heard Mr. Halsted also find fault with bishop Hobart and 
Dr. How; he has heard Mr. Groshon, Mr. Shepherd, and 
Mr. Ashfield, whom the deponent understood were the 
friends of tne plaintiff, and who belong to St. Paul's, in con- 
versation together, in the portico of St. Paul's, on the sub- 
ject of the plaintiff's dispute; but, when he saw that set 
together, he never went near them, and cannot say what 

EC 



218 

was said by them; the several persons above named were 
brought to the recollection of the deponent by being par- 
ticularly named by the plaintiff's counsel ; further he saith 
not. 

New-York, ss* James Swords, of the city of New-York, 
a witness produced on the part of the defendants, being duly 
sworn, deposeth and saith, that he has been a member of 
Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, since the year 
1806; he has been for many years past in habits of intimacy 
with Dr. Hobart, and for several years before the appearance 
of the plaintiff's book, entitled, " A Solemn Appeal," with 
liim ; but not to the same degree. Previous to the publica- 
tion of the plaintiff s book, Dr. Hobart always spoke of the 
plaintiff in friendly and respectful terms, and continued ta 
do so for some time after deponent discovered, from the con- 
versation of the plaintiff, that he entertained unfriendly feel- 
ings towards Dr. Hobart. Early in the fall of 1808, the 
plaintiff came to the store of the deponent, in company with 
the rev. Mr. Joab G. Cooper, and enquired for some pam- 
phlets, which he said were directed to be printed by the 
protestant episcopal soeiety for the promotion of religion and 
learning. After deponent gave the plaintiff as particular 
account concerning them as he could, the plaintiff asked 
him to refer to the leger, which deponent showed to the 
plaintiff; and after looking at it, he enquired by whose or- 
der certain articles were delivered. Deponent answered, 
that some were delivered by order of bishop Moore, some by 
order of Dr. Hobart, and some by others not recollected. 
The plaintiff pressed the deponent to be more particular; 
when he told the plaintiff that he would endeavour to recol- 
lect, and look up the orders. The plaintiff requested to be 
furnished with a copy, from the leger, of the pamphlets de- 
livered, and turned round to Mr. Cooper and observed, it is 
all Dr. Hobart — repeating the same expression, and added, 
you see how it isf it must all be done as Dr. Hobart directs: 
from which expressions, and the manner in which they were 
uttered, the deponent was convinced that there were un- 
friendly feelings entertained on the part of the plaintiff to- 



21$ 

wards Dr. Hobart. This was the first time Chat the depo- 
nent observed it; but he had before heard it as matter of 
report, without crediting it. The deponent had a conver- 
sation with the plaintiff, in the store of the deponent, shortly 
before the publication of the " Solemn Appeal," when he 
asked for a certified copy of the account before mentioned; 
at the same time asking deponent whether he could not say 
that they were all delivered by the order of Dr. Hobart; to 
which deponent answered, with some warmth, that he could 
not say any such thing, conceiving it to be an attempt on the 
part of the plaintiff to enlist deponent on his side in the con- 
troversy between him and Dr. Hobart The plaintiff then 
asked for such certified copy of the account as deponent could 
give, which deponent promised to give. The plaintiff said, 
to be candid, he must tell deponent what use he intended to 
make of the copy, and observed, that there was a certain 
pamphlet ordered to be printed, which never was done ; and 
that the money had been misapplied; that Dr. Hobart and 
Mr. How were leagued together, and that every thing must 
be done as they directed. This young man (meaning, as 
deponent understood, Dr. Hobart) is aiming at the top of the 
ladder, and we must do what we can to pull him down, and 
show him in -his true colours. If he is elected to the episco- 
pate, we shall have such a scene of tyranny exercised in the 
church as has not been seen since the days of arch-bishop 
Laud. The deponent at that time had not mentioned to Dr. 
Hobart that the plaintiff had previously asked for a copy of 
the account of the pamphlets, as before stated. The de- 
ponent says, that the publication of the plaintiff's book had 
the effect among the members of Trinity Church to produce 
extreme displeasure in the minds of some against the plain- 
tiff, and in the minds of others, settled hostility against Dr. 
Hobart and Mr. How. By far the greater part of the con- 
gregation took part against the plaintiff. Soon after the ap- 
pearance of the plaintiff's book, the congregation began to 
divide on the subject of it, and a state of confusion ensued. 
A good many of the congregation avoided the church when 
the plaintiff officiated; and there were others who did attend, 
lo whom the plaintiff's presence was evidently disagreeable 



220 

He lias understood that some of the congregation declined 
attending the ministrations of Dr. Hobart and Mr. How. A 
few days before the publication of the plaintiff's book, de- 
ponent dissuaded the plaintiff from publishing it, and in- 
formed him that the deponent had heard some of the congre- 
gation say, that they would not speak to him if he did ; to 
which the plaintiff replied, that if they would treat him so 
unhandsomely, he could not help it; a*nd that he had weighed 
every consequence, and was ready to meet it. The depo- 
nent says, that in July, 1811, he had a conversation with 
the plaintiff, and observed to him, that he, the deponent, 
was extremely sorry for the mischief and schism that had 
arisen in the church, and that he was very sorry that the 
plaintiff had not taken the advice of his friends, and not 
have published his book; to which plaintiff replied, that he 
was not sorry at all at having published; that whatever mis- 
chief and schism had arisen was chargeable to Dr. Hobart. 
The deponent has always esteemed Dr. Hobart as a very 
mild and unassuming man, and has never observed any thing 
in his character that could be termed overbearing or tyranni- 
cal; and as far as deponent's observation extends, he thinks 
he possesses the confidence and affections of the congrega- 
tion in an unexampled degree. 

On being cross-examined, he says, that the account of the 
pamphlets, published in the " Solemn Appeal," he believes 
to be a correct copy of that furnished by deponent. Dr. 
Hobart's letter to the vestry, and his statement, were printed 
in the office of deponent, from the manuscripts which he re- 
ceived from Dr. Hobart, except the statement by Mr. How, 
annexed to the letter of the vestry ; the manuscript of which 
"was received from Mr. How. Deponent's firm has of late 
years done all the printing for the corporation of Trinity 
Church. He says that bishop Hobart and Mr. How have 
frequently conversed with him since the publication of the 
plaintiff's book, concerning the plaintiff and the matters of 
the existing controversy, and has heard bishop Hobart ascribe 
the plaintiff's hostility to him, to jealousy: he thinks he has 
heard Mr. How say, the plaintiff was a mean trifling fellow, 
or a dirty fellow ; and may have heard him, but is not cer* 



221 

tain, say the plaintiff was a scoundrel. The conversations 
before referred to were shortly after the publication of the 
plaintiff's book, and occasionally throughout the following 
summer. 

On being again examined on the part of the defendants, 
lie says, that the circulation of Dr. Hobart's letter to the 
vestry was, in the first instance, confined to the members of 
the vestry and to a few individuals, named by bishop Hobart. .J 
When Dr. Hobart was going out of toAvn, which was on the / 
same day, as the deponent believes, that the pamphlet was ) 
completed, he authorized deponent to give it to such church-^ 
men as might enquire for it, keeping a list of their names, I 
marking the pamphlet private, and requesting those to whom I 
he should give it to return it when they had read it. There 
were three hundred of the letter to the vestry printed, but 
only one hundred and fifty were ordered by bishop Hobart j 
none of them were sold, but nearly all distributed. There 
were seven or eight hundred of Mr. How's appendix printed, 
but he thinks no particular number were ordered by Mr. 
How; and bishop Hobart found great fault with the extent 
of the impression. A second edition of bishop Hobart's let- 1 
ter to the vestry was published by Sargeant, a bookseller, a ) 
very short time after the appearance of the first, and as the i 
deponent believes, without bishop Hobart's concurrence or j 
privity. Mr. Sargeant had applied for a copy at the store of 4 
the deponent, and being refused, he said he would publish 1 
it; as the copyright was not secured, he would take the res- 
ponsibility. Deponent, before the pamphlet was wholly 
printed, observed to bishop Hobart, that the call for it would 
be so great, that some person would reprint it, unless the 
copyright was secured. Bishop Hobart said, that that could 
not be, as it would \}.e mak in g a publication o f it, and did not 
apprehend that any one would think it worth while to re- 
publish it. Deponent thinks that as many as four-fifths of 
the congregation of St. Paul's Church were desirous that the 
plaintiff should be separated from Trinity Church, at the 
time measures were taken by the vestry for that purpose : 
this opinion is not founded on actual calculation, but from 
nis general acquaintance with the congregation. 



22S 

Being again examined on the part of the plaintiff* he says* 
that he thinks about a dozen of the letters to the vestry ? 
distributed by deponent as aforesaid, were returned. 

Eeing again examined on the part of the defendants, he 
says, that he thinks he has heard bishop Robart urged three 
or four times, but by whom he cannot say, to publish aa 
answer to the plaintiff's book, as essential to the vindication 
of hi3 character; and further he saith not 

The deponent appearing again the day following, and 
wishing to explain what he has before said in relation to the 
epithets applied by Dr. How to the plaintiff, says, that he, 
cannot undertake to say that Dr. How either did, or did not 
snake use of the term scoundrel 4 the deponent has heard a 
number of respectable persons apply that term to the plain- 
tiff in relation to his book. 

The deponent says that be recollects the names of a num- 
ber of individuals belonging to Trinity Church, who expres- 
sed their disapprobation of the conduct of the plaintiff, and 
their wish that he might be separated from that church, and 
who also expressed an unwillingness to attend on his minis- 
tration. 

The deponent on being again cross-examined, says, that 
he has conversed with Dr. How in relation to the testimony 
he gave yesterday; he first mentioned to Dr. How, that he 
had doubts in his own mind, whether what he said in relation 
to the terms used by Dr. How in reference to the plaintiff 
was not too strongly expressed. He says, that yesterday* 
after his examination was closed, he expressed some surprise 
to Dr. How that the deponent had not been interrogated, as 
to the names of persons who were dissatisfied with the plain- 
tiff. Dr. How suggested to the deponent that he had better 
attend this day, as he possibly might be wanted. He says 
that he cannot remember the name of any of the persons 
whom he has heard call the plaintiff scoundrel ; having heard 
so much on the subject, that his memory is very indistinct as 
to what was said by particular individuals; he thinks he has 
heard from five to twelve apply that epithet to the plaintiff; 
and he thinks it possible that some were members in com- 
munion. He says that tickets for the election of vestrymen 



223 

in 1812 were printed at deponent's office. F. Depeyster's 
name was on it; he knows that his name was struck out by- 
several. Bishop Hobart was at the store of deponent a day 
or two before that election, where there were several gentle- 
men, who said, that Mr. Depeyster should be left out, and 
that they would do what they could to keep him out. Bishop 
Hobart observed to them, that that would be wrong, that it 
was not his wish that Mr. Depeyster should get in with a 
full vote, but he wished him by all means to be retained in 
the vestry; and made use of arguments to dissuade the per- 
sons present from turning him out. The deponent says, that 
he never knew a contested election for vestrymen in Trinity 
Church but once before 1812, and it has been usual for only 
a very few votes to be taken; he has been told by a vestry- 
man, that it was sometimes necessary for them to vote them- 
selves in. In 1812 there was an opposition ticket published, 
and the members of the church invited to come to the elec- 
tion and support it. The tickets were printed, and Mr. De- 
peyster's name was upon it. Deponent, previous to that 
election, heard threats used; that bishop Hobart and Dr. 
How would not be in that church in a twelve month. 

On cross-examination he says, that he heard such threats 
used by about three persons: Thomas Hamersley was one of 
them, and he thinks that Israel Purdy was another ; and he 
cannot at present recollect the name of any other. Depo- 
nent thought that the persons who made the above threat 
were at the time in too warm a temper. 

New-York, ss. Edward W. Laight, of the city of New- 
York, a witness produced by the defendants being duly sworn, 
and examined by Dr. How, in the absence of the counsel, 
says, that he was one of the vestry of Trinity Church in 
181 1, when Mr. F. Depeyster moved that the sum of 500 dol- 
lars should be continued to Dr. Harris ; the deponent did not 
know before that time, that such allowance had been made. 
Objections were openly and publicly made against that mo- 
tion, stating that Dr. Harris was then in receipt of the 
same sum from the college, and that the former donation was 
given in order to indemnify him for relinquishing his school. 
The deponent requested Mr. Depeyster to withdraw his mo- 



224 

tion, and supposed that he would have done so; but the 
question being called for, the motion was put and lost. The 
deponent voted against it, for the reasons before mentioned. 
The deponent was a member of the vestry, when the plain- 
tiff's book appeared, and was a member of the first commit- 
tee appointed on that subject ; whose report was a decided 
disapprobation of that publication. The deponent says, that 
it was the opinion of the aforesaid committee, as he under- 
stood and believes, that it was incumbent on the plaintiff, 
after they had made their report, to stop the further publica- 
tion of his book, acknowledge the impropriety of its publica- 
tion, or something tantamount thereto. He does not know 
of any understanding in the vestry, that the aforesaid report 
was to be final and conclusive, or that the matter was to rest 
there ; but on the contrary, he thought that the subsequent 
conduct of the vestry would entirely depend on the conduct of 
Mr. Jones, and on the circumstances growing out of the trans- 
action. The deponent understood that shortly after the re- 
port aforesaid was made, considerable ferment was produced 
in the congregations connected with Trinity Church, in con- 
sequence of the plaintiff's book ; he heard of several who re- 
fused to hear plaintiff preach, but does not recollect particu- 
larly who they were. The deponent remembers that a sub- 
sequent committee was appointed in consequence of the dis- 
turbed state of the church, produced by the plaintiff's book r 
to whom the state of the church generally was referred. He 
has no knowledge of any such committee having been before 
appointed, but he was only one year in the vestry; when the 
vestry determined on a dissolution of their connexion with 
the plaintiff, the deponent thought such measure essential to 
the peace of the church. 

On being cross-examined, says, that he has no reason to 
believe that the part which Dr. Harris took in the affair of 
Mr. Jones, had any influence on the vestry, in withholding 
the 500 dollars. He does not know, that it ever was intima- 
ted to the plaintiff, that the suppression of his book t c.id ac- 
knowledgment of the impropriety of publishing it, would be 
satisfactory. The report of the committee was communicated 
to the plaintiff, and he has no recollection of any other com- 



ere 1 



munication from the vestry to the plaintiff. There never 
was any other attempt on the part of the vestry to effect a 
reconciliation with the plaintiff, except the aforesaid report 
of the committee, which gave plaintiff an opportunity to come 
forward. It was expected that he should take the first steps, 
as he was considered in the wrong. The deponent never 
heard in the vestry, that the plaintiff had suppressed his 
book; or had made any acknowledgment. He recollects 
that the vestry received a letter from the plaintiff, which was 
not considered satisfactory. He has heard that some persons 
refused to hear Dr. Hobart and Mr. How preach ; but whether 
he heard of any such, before the appearance of Dr. Hobart's 
letter to the vestry of Trinity Church or not, he cannot say 
The deponent says, that he would have considered the plain 
tiff in the wrong for publishing, whether the charges were 
true or not ; because the publication of disputes among cler 
gymen, begets irreverence towards their profession* and like 
family quarrels should not be made public; He thinks, that 
the pamphlets written by Dr. Hobart and Mr. How were jus- 
tifiable as a reply, and in vindication of their character from 
#ie charges made by the plaintiff in his book ; but he thinks 
they would not have been justifiable in the first instance. 
The deponent thinks that if the plaintiff's character had been 
assailed by Dr. Hobart and Mr. How in the way stated by 
the plaintiff in his book, that it did not justify his publication, 
but an extreme case might be put of a parol slander, which 
would justify in the opinion of the deponent a reply in print. 
The deponent does not think, that the suspicions of an in- 
dividual respecting the intrigues of another for an important 
office in the church, would justify a publication ; but that if 
important facts of such a nature were known, which could 
not otherwise be communicated to those who had to act in. 
such case, the good of the church might justify a publication. 
On being again examined by the defendants, he says, that 
he thinks that soon after the report of the committee before 
mentioned, if proper steps had been taken by the plaintiff 
that he might have been retained in Trinity Church, con» 
sistent with the prosperity thereof; but that after the pas- 
sions of the congregation became enlisted, he thinks that he 

pf 



226 

could not have been so retained; and the deponent says fee 
is not a vestryman, or one of the congregation of Trinity 
Church. And further the deponent saith not. 

New-York, ss. Joseph Prentiss, of Athens, in the coun- 
ty of Greene, in the state of New-York, rector of Trinity 
Church at Athens aforesaid, being examined as a witness in 
this cause on the part of the defendants, (by consent of the 
plaintiff's counsel) doth depose and say, that some time in 
the summer or autumn of the year one thousand eight hun- 
dred and eight, as nearly as the deponent can recollect, the 
rev. Cave Jones, the plaintiff above named, called on this 
deponent at Athens, his place of residence, at which place 
and in the neighbourhood he remained some days T and preach- 
ed at Athens, and in the neighbouring parishes ; after which 
this deponent went in company with Mr. Jones from Athens 
to Albany, riding together in the same carriage; during 
which ride from Athens to Albany, the conversation between 
Mr. Jones and the deponent turned upon a letter which had 
been addressed to this deponent by Mr. Jones, under the 
date of the ninth of August, one thousand eight hundred and 
eight, and which is published in the plaintiff's " Solemn Ap- 
peal," and upon the state of the episcopal church in the city 
of New-York and the ministers there settled, or some of 
ihem — whereupon Mr. Jones took occasion to observe on the 
character and conduct of Dr. Hobart, and to represent him in 
an unfavourable light to the deponent; the particular words 
or expressions used by Mr. Jones, or at least many of them, 
this deponent does not now recollect, and cannot therefore re- 
peat, but they were calculated to induce the deponent to believe 
that Dr. Hobart was a hasty, ambitious, and ill-bred man, un- 
worthy of the ministerial office, and undeserving of the con- 
fidence of the other clergy of the same connection. And in 
fact, as this deponet could not then altogether withhold his 
belief in the truth and accuracy of Mr. Jones, this deponent 
from the said conversation and the aforesaid letter, was led 
to suspect that Dr. Hobart had been guilty of the embezzle- 
ment of public money intrusted to him for a special purpose, 
or had employed the same to the purchase of his own coiitro- 



227 

vcrsial writings, which was not the purpose to which it was 
intended to be applied. 

And this deponent further saith, that in the course of some 
or one of the conversations which took place between this 
deponent and Mr. Jones, the plaintiff during his stay at 
Athens aforesaid, or the ride from there to Albany, Mr. Jones 
observed to this deponent in substance, or to the effect fol- 
lowing, that if bishop Moore should drop off within a few 
years, Dr. Beach would undoubtedly, or probably, come 
forward with his claims to be bishop, but that he was wholly 
unfit for the office and ought not to be elected; and Mr. Jones 
added observations very disrespectful to Dr. Beach at the 
laine time or times. 

And this deponent further saith, ever since this deponent 
feecame acquainted with bishop Moore, which was as early 
as 1806 or 1807, he, bishop Moore, has been considered as 
the sole diocesan, and as far as the deponent knows, or ever 
understood, been obeyed as such, until the controversy with 
Mr. Jones took place. And this deponent further saith, that 
in the course of the conversations, which he has before re* 
lated, with Mr. Jones, and in which Mr. Jones made the ob- 
servations unfavourable to Dr. Hobart' s character, Mr. Jones 
proposed that Dr. Hobart should be removed from or left out 
of the office of secretary of the state convention, and re- 
quested the deponent, in case he approved of the measure, 
to prepare the mind of the rev. John Reed, then of Catskill, 
for it. And this deponent further saith, that he believes the 
observations before alluded to, made by Mr. Jones, un- 
friendly to Dr. Hobart's character, were intended, among 
other things, to induce the deponent to join in the measure 
of turning, or leaving Dr. Hobart out of the said office of se- 
cretary. And this deponent further saith, that in all the 
conversations he has held with Dr. Hobart, or which he has 
heard Dr. Hobart have respecting Mr. Jones, prior to the 
publication of his " Appeal," he never heard Dr. Hobart ex- 
press himself in a harsh or unfriendly manner of Mr. Jones, 
but on the contrary, all the conversations of Dr. Hobart., 
which haye come to the knowledge ol this deponent, res- 



22# 

peeling Mr, Jones, have been respectful and friendly, prior 
to the publication of his " Appeal." 

Deponent being cross-examined on the part of the plain- 
tiff, says, he cannot recollect the particular expressions used 
by Mr. Jones, nor the particular circumstances stated by 
him, which were calculated to induce this deponent to be- 
lieve that Dr. Hobart was a hasty, ambitious, and ill-bred 
man, unworthy of the ministerial office, and undeserving of 
the confidence of the other clergy of the same connection, 
except that Mr. Jones stated to him some conversation which 
he said had taken place between him and Dr. Hobart, at. 
some funeral, in which he represented Dr. Hobarfs conduct 
on that occasion as being very indecorous ; and that he had 
frequently fallen into a violent passion, and used unbecoming 
and improper language. The idea of his being an ambitious 
man, arose in the deponent's mind, among other things,, 
from Mr. Jones's representing him as acting in the capacity 
of a member of the standing committee, always in favour of. 
or using partiality to those who were or would be favourable 
io his views, and against those who would not. One other 
thing which gave this deponent the idea of Dr. Hobart's 
being ambitious, was, that his hostility to a Mr. Macklin, 
who had been in this country, was attributed to that trait in 
his character; and his jealousy that Mr. Macklin, if ac- 
credited, would not be subservient to his views. And depo- 
nent concluded that Dr. Hobart had appropriated the monies 
of the church, designed for other purposes, to the purchase 
of his own controversial writings, as he understood Mr. 
Jones, in order to exalt himself, and make himself of more 
consequence in the church ; and Mr. Jones imputed the pub- 
lishing of a Collection of Essays, by Dr. Hobart, to that 
motive. Has no further recollection of any other circum- 
stance mentioned of his ambition. Deponent considered 
the expression in Mr. Jones's letter, above referred to, of 
Dr. Hobart's applying the monies of the church in the way 
which best suited his own wishes and views, as evidence of 
want of integrity, and Gne of the grounds forming a disquali- 
fication for the ministerial office, as well as the other things 



229 

already by lurn stated. Deponent does not recollect any 
other specific charges made by Mr. Jones against Dr. Hobart. 
Deponent does not mean to represent the expression, in his 
direct examination, " unworthy of the ministerial office," as 
having been used by Mr. Jones, but as the inference of his 
own mind from what Mr. Jones did communicate. Mr. 
Jones did not make any charge against Dr. Hobart of the 
embezzlement of public money entrusted to him, but this 
deponent was led to suspect the same, and it was an infer- 
ence of his own mind from the expression in the before men- 
tioned letter, and from the circumstances already stated; 
but this deponent does not now believe that Mr. Jones then 
intended to charge Dr. Hobart with such embezzlement. In 
respect to that part of the conversation testified to in depo- 
nent's direct examination, which related to the unfitness of 
Dr. Beach for the office of bishop, deponent does not recol- 
lect any other objections specified, except his disposition to 
indolence, that he would be led by the nose by Dr. Hobart 
and Mr. Lyell, and that his want of talent in writing was 
not suited for a bishop. 

New-York, ss. Barzillai Bulkley, of Flushing, in the 
county of Queens, a witness produced on the part of the de- 
fendants, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he has 
been settled as an episcopal clergyman in the diocese of 
New-York, since the year 1806, and is now rector of St- 
George's Church in Flushing. He became acquainted with 
the plaintiff and Dr. Hobart soon after he settled in the dio- 
cese, and has been quite intimate with Dr. Hobart almost 
ever since. Until the fall of 1808, he always heard Dr. Ho- 
bart speak in very respectful terms of the plaintiff. When the 
deponent came to attend the convention in that year, he in- 
formed Dr. Hobart, that the plaintiff in conversation with 
the deponent, a short time previous, had said, that he, Dr. 
Hobart, had drawn up a number of charges against Mr. Fel- 
tus, which he did not believe he would be able to substan- 
tiate ; and that the plaintiff had enquired of deponent whe- 
ther he had not received from Dr. Hobart certain religious 
iracts; and censured him for not having sent them, saying 



&30 

that it was his duty lo have done so as secretary of the coii> 
vention; and that the plaintiff had observed to deponent, 
that he thought he, Dr. Hobart, was pursuing a system of 
favouritism. And the deponent at the same time informed 
Dr. Hobart, that the general tendency of the remarks made 
by the plaintiff, was to depreciate him, Dr. Hobart, in the 
opinion of the deponent. Upon the deponent's informing Dr. 
Hobart of the purport of the observations which had been 
made by the plaintiff respecting him as aforesaid, he appeared 
to be very much dejected and distressed, and observed, that 
he could say of himself as the Psalmist said of himself — 
" Oh that I had wings like a dove^ then I could fly away 
and be at rest." The deponent heard Dr. Hobart observe, 
in the winter of 1809, that if he was to study his own ease, 
he would retire to avoid the collisions and difficulties which 
he foresaw would arise, but that he owed it to his ordination 
vows to continue in the service of the church. 

On being cross-examined, the deponent saith, that the 
communication which he made to Dr. Hobart of the observa* 
tions of the plaintiff concerning him, were made in Dr. Ho- 
bart's study. The certificate signed by the deponent, and 
published in Dr. Hobart's letter to the vestry of Trinity 
Church, page 38, was given by him to Dr. Hobart soon after 
the appearance of the " Solemn Appeal." The deponent 
wrote the certificate in the form in which it is published, 
and it was published with his consent. The deponent says, 
that previous to the conversation before referred to, between 
Dr. Hobart and him, in which he informed Dr. Hobart of the 
observations made by the plaintiff as before stated, the de- 
ponent being at Dr. Hobart's house, in company with Mr. 
How, hinted first to him the purport of plaintiff's observa- 
tions concerning Dr. Hobart; and Mr. How, with the con- 
sent of the deponent, informed Dr. Hobart, as deponent un- 
derstood; upon which Dr. Hobart joined the deponent in the 
study, and on making enquiry, the deponent made the com- 
munication aforesaid to him. He was present at the meet- 
ing of bishop Moore and Ms presbyters, on 5th November, 
1811. He does not remember to have heard of a convoca- 
tion in October, 1811. He does not recollect being present 



2M 

at any meeting of the bishop or assistant bishop and presby- 
ters, between the sitting of the convention in May, 1811, 
and that of the 5th November in that year, or hearing of any 
such, until he saw a pamphlet of the plaintiff's, in which a 
caucus of the clergy is spoken of. 

Being again examined by the defendants, the deponent 
says, that Dr. Hobart, in the course of the conversation be* 
tween him and the deponent, before referred to, spoke of 
resigning the office of secretary of the convention, in favour 
of the plaintiff; and asked deponent whether he thought that 
would pacify him ; to which deponent replied, that the ex- 
periment might be tried. And further he sailh not. 

New-York, ss. William E. Wyatt, of Newtown, Long- 
Island, aged 24 years, a minister of the gospel, in the pro- 
testant episcopal church, being duly sworn, saith, that he 
was a student of divinity in the city of New- York, in the 
year 1809 and 1810, and in habits of intimacy with the rev. 
Dr. Hobart, rev. Dr. How, and Mr. Jones; — that during this 
intimacy he never knew Dr. Hobart or Dr. How to endeavour 
directly or indirectly to diminish his regard for Mr. Jones ; — 
that until the existence of the dissentions between those gen- 
tlemen became generally known, he never heard either Dr. 
Hobart or Dr. How speak otherwise than respectfully of Mr. 
Jones ; — that in his intercourse with Mr. Jones, he was fre- 
quently displeased with the tendency of Mr. Jones's remarks, 
which appeared designed to depreciate doctors Hobart and 
How, and those gentlemen w r ho were known to be most 
friendly to them, in his esteem, that he at last relinquished 
his visits to Mr. Jones, solely on this account, and that he 
resolved to do so, and informed a friend of his design, be- 
fore he had conversed with any person on the subject of the 
controversy existing between Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones— 
that he was impressed by Mr. Jones's frequent remarks dero* 
gatory to Dr. How and Dr. Hobart, with the opinion that 
Mr. Jones was of an envious disposition, and jealous of the 
greater popularity of the other gentlemen — that at the time 
he proposed to enter system aticlly upon the study Of theo- 
logy, he was desirous of being under the direction of Dn- 



How, but that Dr. Hobart and Dr. How urged him to study 
under the direction of doctors Hobart and How, and Mr.-, 
Jones, unitedly ; that this was repeatedly recommended by 
the former two gentlemen, so as to impress him with a belief 
that they much wished it ; and that the plan was relinquished 
solely in consequence of the deponent's aversion from it; — 
and that having belonged to the Theological Society during 
the time that Dr. Montross was also a member of the same, 
he recollects that his impressions, arising from the character 
of Dr. Montross's performances there, were unfavourable 
to said Dr. Montross, in regard to his talents and manners. 

On cross-examination, he says, that the deponent cannot 
recollect any of the remarks which Mr. Jones made, which 
induced his belief that Mr. Jones was unfavourably disposed 
to Dr. Hobart and Mr. How, it being between three and 
five years since the conversation with Mr. Jones to which 
the deponent refers. These remarks, relating to the subject 
of Mr. Jones, was the subject of conversation between the 
deponent and Mr. Kemper, Who visited Mr. Jones with the 
deponent. 

New-York, ss. Thomas Lyell, rector of Christ Church 
in the city of New-York, a witness produced by the defend- 
ants, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he received 
directions from bishop Moore to summons all the presbyters 
in the diocese, who were entitled to seats in the convention, 
to attend him on the 5th November 1811, at No. 20, Robin 
son-Street, to take into consideration the affairs of the plain- 
tiff and the vestry of Trinity Church : he prepared the notices 
accordingly, and took them to bishop Moore, who directed 
his son, Clement C. Moore, to sign them for him, which he 
did, and handed them to the deponent, who afterwards put 
them in the post-office. 

On being cross-examined, he says, that he was present at 
a meeting of bishop Moore and some of his presbyters in 
October 1811. He is not certain, but he thinks the rev. Mr. 
JBarry was not present. He thinks that meeting was held on 
the day after the adjournment of the convention. The merits 
of the plaintiff's case with Trinity Church was there dis- 
cussed $ the necessity of the plaintiff's being separated from 



233 

that church, and the terms on which that should foe done. 
There was nothing formally done at that meeting — nothing 
committed to paper. The clergy were unanimous as to the 
necessity of a separation, and the condition as to the allow- 
ance of 10001. ; but there was some little contrariety of opin- 
ion as to the manner of bringing it about. He does not know 
that the plaintiff was summoned to attend, and thinks that he 
was not. He does not know that any of the clergy were for- 
mally summoned except Dr. Beach, who was sent for after 
they had assembled. Dr. R. C. Moore, Dr. Harris, Mr. Feltus, 
and Mr. Haskel were not present. Deponent understood at 
the time that bishop Moore had conversed with Dr. R. C» 
Moore and Dr. Harris on the subject. Drs. Moore and Harris 
and Mr. Feltus did attend the convention in October 1811. 
He is not sure that Mr. Haskel did. He thinks that fill the 
clergy who met in October sat on the plaintiff's case in No° 
▼ember. The determination in November was what had 
been agreed upon in October previous. Deponent says, that 
he does not know how or why the final sentence bears date 
on the 5th October, but has no doubt that it was owing to 
mistake. The paper now shown to him, being the decision 
of the bishop and his presbyters on the 5th November 1811.. 
which was served on the plaintiff, may have been transcribed 
a few days before the meeting in November. He does not 
know when the original was first written — it was some time 
after the meeting in October, and before the meeting of No- 
vember. Deponent- says, that when he made the transcript 
aforesaid, he left no blank for the sum of a thousand pounds. 
He thinks that sum was inserted in consequence of the deter- 
mination in October. He did not summon to the convoca- 
tion in November, Mr. Jarvis, Mr. D. Moore, Mr. Pelch, 
Mr. Urquhart, or Dr. Surges ;' neither of those gentlemen 
were entitled to seats in the convention, and they were the 
only presbyters at that time in the state who were not en- 
titled to a seat in the convention. 

On being again examined by the defendants, he says, that 
he did not consider the meeting in November 1811, on the 
subject of the plaintiff, bound by what was done at the meet- 
ing in October, but he thought it probable the business would 



take the same course. There was no formal vote taken iii 
October 1811, and that what he has said in his cross-exami- 
nation respecting the determination on a sum, refers merely 
to the unanimity of opinion on that subject. 

On being again examined by the plaintiff, the deponent says, 
that he did suppose that the opinion of the meeting in Octo- 
ber 1811, would be final, because he did suppose that the 
plaintiff would be induced thereby to quit his connexion with 
Trinity Church : — and further he saith not. 

New-York, ss. William Berrian, of the city of New- 
York, a witness on the part of the defendants, being duly 
sworn, deposeth and saith, that he is now in the twenty-sev- 
enth year of his age, he became acquainted with Dr. Hobarl 
in February 1805, and has ever since been very intimate 
with him, and much in his family; he thinks Dr. Hobart hags 
been in the habit of unreserved and confidential intercourse 
with him. The deponent commenced the study of divinity 
under Dr. Hobart's direction in August 1808; until the 
year 1809, the deponent never discovered any thing on tha 
part of Dr. Hobart unfriendly to the plaintiff; nor heard him 
speak of him, but in a way calculated to. produce esteem; 
and he discovered a solicitude to make deponent feel esteem 
for the plaintiff. In the early part of the spring of 1809, Dr. 
Hobart mentioned to deponent some particulars in the conduct 
of the plaintiff, which he regarded as unfriendly towards him ; 
he spoke of it with regret, and not in terms of bitterness, or 
resentment. After deponent was in orders, Dr. Hobart re- 
quested him to call on the plaintiff, and make a tender of his 
services to officiate for him ; saying that it was a duty which 
deponent owed to the plaintiff, as well as to the other clergy. 
The conversation which he had with Dr. Hobart before men- 
tioned, was the first intimation which deponent had of any 
unfriendly feelings, on the part of the plaintiff, against Dr. 
Hobart. Soon after, it became very well understood among 
the clergy ;• the deponent was a member of the theological 
society, while Dr. Montross belonged to it; he considered 
him indolent, and not calculated to be very useful, or res- 
pectable in the ministry* and appeared to possess a vulgar 



•east of mind. The deponent has not seen any other indica* 
tions of strong passions on the part of Dr. Montross, except 
a letter which he wrote to bishop Hobart on the subject of 
bishop Moore. 

On being cross-examined, the deponent says, that he mar- 
ried a niece of Mrs. Hobart's, about nine months ago; he 
gave a certificate, which was published in Dr. Hobart's let- 
ter to the vestry; when, he does not recollect, but he re- 
members, that a month ortwo, or perhaps a little more, be- 
fore the publication of the plaintiff's " Solemn Appeal," Dr. 
Hobart informed deponent that he should probably want 
such certificate, grounded, as the deponent believes, on 
the circulation of the plaintiff's book in manuscript, and the 
expectation that it would soon be published. In the certifi- 
cate which the deponent gave Dr. Hobart, there were some 
things respecting the degree of intimacy between Dr. Hobart 
and the deponent, which were omitted by Dr. Hobart in the 
publication, as surplusage. The certificate published, is in 
every other respect, as written by the deponent. The cir- 
cumstances alluded to by Dr. Hobart in the conversation 
with the deponent in 1809 before mentioned, were the plain- 
tiff's pressing the introduction of Dr. Montross and Mr. Gil- 
let in the ministry, against the known opinion of Dr. Hobart, 
and most of the other clergy, Avho. thought them unfit; and in 
one instance, in relation to one of those persons, the stand- 
ing committee was either convened, or urged to be convened 
by the plaintiff in, the absence of Dr. Hobart; he thinks that 
one other circumstance mentioned by Dr. Hobart in the con- 
versation aforesaid, was, that the plaintiff had expressed him- 
self disrespectfully concerning some of the writings of Dr. 
Hobart, among some of the congregation of Trinity Church. 
For two or three years subsequent to 1 808, the deponent was 
in the habit of visiting in the family of the plaintiff frequent- 
ly, he never heard him speak disrespectfully of Dr. Hobart 
The reason why he did not proffer his services to the plaintiff, 
as recommended by Dr. Hobart, was that deponent was not 
then so intimate with, and had not the same attachment for., 
the plaintiff as for some of the other clergy. The deponent 
,«ays, that he has never heard any thing against the charar 



236 

ter of Dr. Montross as a man of truth, and morality, which 
is all he can say on the subject, having no particular acquaint- 
ance with him ; — and further the deponent saith not. 

New-York, ss. Nathaniel Bowen, of the city of New- 
York, a witness produced by the defendants, being duly 
sworn deposeth and saith, that he is rector of Grace Church, 
in the city of New- York, and was present at a convocation 
of bishop Moore and his presbyters on the 5th of November 
2811. Deponent considered bishop Moore in possession of 
his mental faculties, and competent to the business before 
him at thai time. He recollects that Dr. R. C. Moore was 
interrupted in the remarks he offered to that convocation, on 
account as deponent conceived, of their irrelevancy to the 
subject before them, and their being insulting to the feelings 
of bishop Moore, and calculated unnecessarily to agitate his 
mind; he being then weak in bodily health. Deponent 
thinks, that that convocation was conducted with propriety 
and decorum, except in so far as it was interrupted by the 
offensive observations of Dr. R. C. Moore, and Mr. Feltus. 
The deponent recollects but two interruptions of Dr. Moore, 
wiien he was called to order, and appeals w T ere made to the 
chair. After the second interruption, Dr. Moore sat down; 
and although requested to proceed by the president, Dr. 
Moore declined, and did not proceed. He recollects that a 
few weeks prior to 5th November 1811, he was notified by 
bishop Moore, to meet him and his presbyters at Mrs. Moore's 
in Robinson-street, the object of which meeting, as deponent 
understood, was the consideration of the case of the plaintiff, 
and the vestry of Trinity Church ; which had been referred 
to bishop Moore by the vestry. The deponent attended in 
consequence, and met bishop Moore, and a number of the 
clergy; the only clergymen he can now distinctly recollect 
who were present, w r ere Dr. Beach, Dr. Bowden, Dr. How, 
and Mr. Phelps, but there were several others. Mr. King 
was sent for after they had mut, as one of the wardens of 
Trinity Church, to explain the grounds on which the request 
of the vestry was made ; and he attended in consequence, 
and stated, that the agitation produced in Trinity Church by 



237 

the plaintiff's " Solemn Appeal," made it expedient, in order 
to restore the peace and tranquilly of the church, that the 
plaintiff's connection with that church should be dissolved, 
but he disclaimed all idea of calling in question the charac- 
ter of the plaintiff; his statement was concise, and after 
making it, he withdrew. The meeting then proceeded to 
confer together, and after deliberating for about three quarters 
of an hour, they unanimously adopted a resolution, recom- 
mending it to the plaintiff to retire from Trinity Church upon 
the vestry paying to him, a certain sum, the amount of which 
deponent does not recollect. Soon after the aforesaid meet- 
ing, apprehension was entertained by some person (who the 
deponent does not know) that the validity of their proceed- 
ings might be called in question, on account of all the presby- 
ters of the diocese not having been summoned to attend, who 
were entitled to vote in the conventions of the church ; and 
which being communicated to bishop Moore, as the deponent 
understood, he determined to call another convocation ; and 
in consequence, that of the 5th of November was summoned. 
Deponent says he always considered bishop Moore, as 
the acting bishop of the diocese, since he first became ac- 
quainted with the church in New-York; until the election of 
bishop Hobart, bishop Moore always exercised the power, 
and deponent considered him as having the right exclusively 
until the first meeting of the standing committee, after bishop 
Moore's illness, when a doubt was created in the mind of the 
deponent, which however was immediately afterwards, and 
on mature reflection and examination, wholly removed. De- 
ponent thinks, that the convention of the diocese, is the 
proper tribunal to determine the question, who is the dioce- 
san ; and that the house of bishops, have no power to define 
the local jurisdiction of a bishop, or to ascertain it where it 
is doubtful. 

On being cross examined he says, that the spiritual authority 
of a bishop, is conferred by the act of consecration, according 
to the tenets of the episcopal church; and the spiritual authori- 
ty is conferred by the bishops who consecrate. The bishops 
who consecrate, do not in the act of consecration, act as a 
house of bishops. The deponent does not think, that the 



238 

i 'house oi- bishops, acting as such, can convey any spiritual au- 
thoritjc The protestant episcopal church in its tenets of gov- 
ernment, are the same in this country as in all others, except 
in so far as they are modified by the constitution and canons. 
The deponent thinks that the powers of bishops in their in- 
dividual or collective capacities, in the protestant episcopal 
ehurches in all countries, is the same, except so far as it 
is modified, or affected by the laws of the particular country, 
or by the constitution and canons of the particular church, 
and so far as deponent recollects, this has been the case in 
all ages. The deponent does not know of any public act of 
bishop Moore, in his official character, since his illness, ex- 
cept that of calling a special convention in 181.1, and his 
ticts in relation to the plaintiff. Bishop Provoost acted at 
the consecration of bishop Hobart; bishop Moore did not, 
being more of an invalid. Bishop Provoost was at the time 
Tery unwell, and obliged to be lifted into his carriage when 
lie went from church ; he thinks that bishop Provoost was 
present at the delivery of the sermon, but is not certain, 
At the meeting of bishop Moore and some of his presbyters, 
in October 1811, -before mentioned, Hr. Beach was not pre- 
sent at first, but was sent for, and attended before any thing 
was done, and nothing was done without his knowledge and 
concurrence at the time. The deponent has not a distinct 
recollection, but he rather thinks, the rev. Mr. Barry was 
-present at that meeting. Mr. King was not present at that 
meeting for more than fifteen or twenty minutes. Deponent 
■saw no paper expressive of the resolution adopted by that 
meeting, either drawn up or produced there; there was no 
secretary of the meeting appointed, or minute of the pro- 
ceedings taken, as far as deponent remembers; the meeting 
he thinks was summoned for 12 o'clock at noon; he does not 
know whether the plaintiff was notified to attend or not; 
he was not sent for, and no one appeared on his behalf. 
The deponent gave the certificate to bishop Hobart, pub- 
lished in his letter to the vestry of Trinity Church, at the 
time it bears date. • 

The deponent on being again examined by the defendants 
«ayg> that the powers of bishops in this country, whether con- 



M9 

aidered individually or collectively are to be determined By 
Scripture, by apostolic practice, and by the constitution and- 
canons of the protestant episcopal church in the United 
States. The rules or laws of the church of England, Scot- 
land or Sweden, are not binding on the church in this coun- 
try; nor have we any thing to do with those rules or laws, 
except so far, as they may be applied in the way of illustra- 
tion. The deponent says, that a bishop from England, Scot- 
land, or Sweden, might have acted in the consecration of 
bishop Hobart if requested so to do, by the other consecrat- 
ing bishops ; and the consecration, would not thereby have 
been invalidated. Bishop Provoost, in the consecration of 
Bishop Hobart, acted as a bishop at large, without reference 
to any jurisdictional authority. The deponent says, that the 
apostolic practice herein before referred to, is to be found in 
the history of the primitive church, as handed down by wri- 
ters of approved authority ; — and further the deponent saitb 
not. 

New-York, ss. Isaac Wilkins, of West Chester, a wit^ 
ness on the part of the defendants, being duly sworn, deposeth 
and saith, thai he i& seventy years old and upwards; is rec- 
tor of St. Peter's Church in West Chester, and has been a 
minister in the protestant episcopal church about thirteen 
years; he has always considered bishop Moore as the dioce- 
san of this state for the last twelve years, and in no respect 
subordinate to bishop Provoost. Deponent was at the gene- 
ral convention at Trenton in 1801 as a delegate; and he 
thinks that the opinion expressed by the house of bishops ai 
that time, as to the resignation of a bishop, was considered 
by the house of clerical and lay deputies as a mere opinion in 
no wise binding on them. Deponent and bishop Hobart were 
ordained priests at the same time, and deponent has been 
particularly intimate with him ever since. The deponent has 
always considered him, as deservedly in very high estima* 
tion among his friends in the church, who are very numer- 
ous; and from deponent's intimate personal knowledge of 
Mm, he thinks that his character is the very reverse of over- 
bearing, arrogant, or tyrannical. Within a year or two previa 



2m 

4 

ou a to the appearance of the plaintiff 's book, he heard bishop 
Hobart mention one or two things respecting the plaintiff, 
which he, bishop Hobart, considered unfriendly, and which 
lie could not account for ; prior to that time, he has no recol- 
lection of hearing bishop Hobart say any thing that denoted 
unfriendly feelings between the plaintiff and him. A short 
time before the appearance of the plaintiff's book, he, to- 
gether with Dr. Harris and Dr. R. C. Moore, visited depo- 
nent at his house, when the subject of electing an assistant 
bishop was talked of, and a wish was intimated by them, that 
deponent would offer himself a candidate ; when deponent 
observed, that he was too old to discharge the duties of a pa- 
rish, and consequently too old to discharge the duties of a 
large diocese. In the course of the conversation Dr. Ho- 
bait's name was mentioned ; when the plaintiff observed, that 
lie had received such treatment from Dr. Hobart as he the 
plaintiff, could hardly bear ; and that at times, he could hard- 
ly keep his hands from him. The plaintiff appeared to be 
very warm, and in walking backwards and forwards in the 
room, he said, that Dr. Hobart was the man that prevented 
deponent's getting St. John's Church. 

Deponent was a member of the convocation of the 5th No- 
vember 1811 ; he thinks that bishop Moore was on that occa- 
sion in possession of his mental faculties, equal to the dis- 
charge of the duties incumbent on him as president of that 
board. Deponent recollects that Dr. R. C Moore was inter- 
rupted in an address he was delivering to that meeting, on ac- 
count of expressions which were deemed disrespectful to the 
authority then assembled; but he was afterwards permitted 
to proceed, until it was found that he was going into the me- 
rits of the controversy between the plaintiff and bishop Ho- 
bart, when deponent interrupted him on the ground of the 
irrelevancy of his address. Deponent thinks that Dr. Moore 
was requested to go on again ; but he did not proceed with his 
address. Deponent believes that he did afterwards take a 
part in debate. Deponent says, that the plaintiff might have 
brought his complaints against Dr. Hobart before the vestry 
of Trinity Church, who might have taken means to bring 
about a reconciliation of differences ; or have laid it before 



2U 

the bishop; or the plaintiff might, with two other presbyters, 
presented Dr. Hobart to the bishop : and deponent does not 
think that there is any other regular mode of proceeding in 
such cases, in the first instance. 

On being cross-examined deponent says, that he was one 
of the deputies who waited on the house of bishops at Tren- 
ton in 1801, as he thinks at their request; when bishop 
White expressed a doubt or difficulty about a bishop's resign- 
ing : he has no recollection of what else passed in the house 
of bishops. The deputies returned with the same sentiments 
they had previously entertained on that subject; the business 
went on as usual; bishop Moore was consecrated, and as the 
deponent then and has ever since believed, the diocesan of 
this state, and as far as he understood the opinions of the 
members of the house of clerical and lay deputies, this was 
the opinion of all of them. Deponent says he thinks that if 
the house of bishops should consecrate a person, as an assist- 
ant, or coadjutor bishop, that person could not become a dio- 
cesan, without the subsequent act or concurrence of the house 
of bishops. The house of bishops has not, in the opinion of 
the deponent, any power, as a college of bishops separately 
in this country. He was present at the consecration of Dr« 
Hobart ; he does not know who are meant by the bishops, 
mentioned in his letters of consecration. He considers a 
presbyter in this state is one who is settled in a parish in this 
state, and is under the jurisdiction of the bishop. A priest who 
is settled in a parish is under the jurisdiction of the bishop, 
although not instituted. He says that the convocation of 
the 5th November, 1811, was as orderly a meeting as he ever 
attended of the sort; there were occasional interruptions, but 
no clamour. 

Deponent being again examined by the defendants, says, 
that if a person is elected diocesan, and presented to the 
house of bishops as such, they cannot consecrate that per- 
son an assistant bishop : they must consecrate according to 
his election, or not at all. The power of electing a bishop 
is in the state convention. Persons settled in parishes, since 
the passing of the canon requiring an institution, are not en- 
titled, before they are instituted, to a seat in the convention ; 

nh 



but he thinks that canon does not apply to persons pre- 
viously'settled. He thinks that a person settled in a parish, 
although not instituted according to the canon, would be en- 
titled to a seat in a convocation, if called on by the bishop; 
and he thinks it is incumbent on the bishop to summon to 
a convocation a person so settled ; and further he saith not. 

'New-York, ss. John Bowden, professor of moral science 
and belles lettres, in Columbia College, a witness on the part 
of the defendants, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, 
that he has been an episcopal minister since the year 1774, 
has been settled in New-York, as professor as aforesaid, for 
about eleven years past. Bishop Moore has been the dioce- 
san since the deponent came to this city; he was present as 
a presbyter at the meeting of bishop Moore and his presby- 
ters, in November, 1811, when they sat upon the plaintiff 's 
case. He thinks bishop Moore, on that occasion, was alto- 
gether competent to the business before them, and he pre- 
sided with propriety and understanding; Dr. R. C. Moore 
was interrupted in his address to that meeting, which was in 
writing ; deponent interrupted him because he thought Dr» 
Moore went into the consideration of matters with which 
they had nothing to do, and because he made use of obser- 
vations tending to arraign the motives of the persons con- 
vened; afterwards Dr. Moore was requested to proceed, and 
he did proceed for some time, until bishop Moore said with 
a good deal of feeling, " Oh Dr. Moore!" which again in- 
terrupted him, and he was again requested to proceed, but 
he did not go on with the reading of his manuscript ; de- 
ponent thinks however, that Dr. Moore afterwards took a 
part in the business that was before the meeting. The busi- 
ness of that meeting was conducted throughout with order 
and regularity, as much so as that of any deliberative body 
deponent ever attended. Deponent thinks, that the bishop 
has a right to summon such of the presbyters of the diocese, 
to meet him in convocation, as he may judge proper, and 
that no irregularity can be ascribed to him, if he should omit 
to call some of them, provided he has summoned a compe- 
tent number to attend; that in cases where any authoritative 



243 

act is to be done, deponent thinks, that the distinction pre- 
scribed by the canon, in reference to seats in the conven- 
tion as a matter of propriety, would be proper to be observed. 
Deponent says, that at the time of the meeting of bishop 
Moore and his presbyters, in November, 1811, the following 
persons, who were settled in the diocese as presbyters, had 
not been instituted agreeably to the canon, viz. David Moore 
of Staten Island, Mr. Jarvis of Bloomingdale, Mr. Felch of 
Bedford, Mr. Burgess of Brookhaven, and Mr. Urquhart of 
Peekskill. The paper now produced and signed with the 
proper hand of the deponent, the plaintiff, Mr. Lyell and 
Dr. How, and dated 28th February, 1309, he believes is in 
the proper hand writing of the plaintiff, and drawn up by 
him, and is so admitted by the plaintiff's counsel, which 
paper was presented to bishop Moore as diocesan, and acted 
upon by him in that capacity. Deponent says, that the 
publication of the plaintiff's " Solemn Appeal," produced in 
the congregations connected with Trinity Church very great 
uneasiness, and general dissatisfaction, so far as deponent's 
information extended ; it was the subject of conversation be- 
tween the deponent and a great number of the members of 
those congregations, and he does not remember to have con- 
versed with one w r ho did not condemn it in strong and une- 
quivocal terms; a very considerable number of the members 
of that church did not wish to see the plaintiff officiate, in con- 
sequence of that publication, and from all that the deponent 
saw and learnt on that subject, he thinks that a regard to the 
peace and harmony of Trinity Church, made it highly ne- 
cessary that the plaintiff should be separated irom them; and 
the dissentions in the church continually increased, until the 
separation took place. Deponent has not, and never had 
a doubt, that the case of the plaintiff with Trinity Church 
came under the 32d canon of the general convention; depo- 
nent has been in habits of intimacy with bishop Hohart 
for eleven years past; his general conduct has been that of 
a very excellent man in a moral and religious point of view, 
and an exemplary man in the discharge of his clerical du- 
ties ; deponent has never observed any thing like arrogance 
or haughtiness in bishop Hobart, but quite the contrary ; de~ 



244 

ponent had several conversations with bishop Hobart on the 
subject of the plaintiff, after he discovered that the plaintiff 
entertained unfriendly dispositions towards him, and after 
he had heard of the affair of Mr. Prentice, and before the 
publication of the plaintiff's " Solemn Appeal ;" the depo- 
nent was astonished at the mildness with which Dr. Hobart 
always spoke of the circumstance, and he expressed his 
regret that the plaintiff had taken a wrong impression res- 
pecting him ; he never showed the least resentment or bit- 
terness; and the deponent thinks if he had harboured such 
feelings, that the deponent would have discovered it. Bishop 
Hobart once called on deponent, and after conversing about 
the plaintiff, asked deponent if he would speak to the plain- 
tiff, and endeavour to dissuade him from indulging in hos- 
tility towards him, and expressed a wish that a friendly in- 
tercourse might be re-established between them: a wish 
that they might live on friendly terms, was more than once 
expressed by bishop Hobart to deponent. Deponent says, 
that he knows, that some time after bishop Hobart had heard 
of the unfriendly dispositions of the plaintiff towards him, 
he had it in contemplation to remove to New- Jersey, and 
the deponent persuaded him from it, and that one of the 
leading motives to such a step, was the 1 uneasiness in the 
church, which grew out of the plaintiff's opposition to him. 
Deponent had heard Dr. Beach condemn the publication of 
the " Solemn Appeal," and has frequently heard him speak 
of the plaintiff's conduct towards him, before the disturb- 
ances in the church, as very disrespectful and improper. De- 
ponent says that he does not believe that Dr. Hobart took 
any pains to secure the office of bishop to himself. He 
never informed deponent that he would accept the office, 
and deponent believes that he had a severe conflict in his 
6wn mind, before he did consent to accept it. Deponent al- 
ways thought that Dr. Hobart would succeed bishop Moore, 
as bishop of this state; and as far as deponent was ac- 
quainted with the opinion of others, such was their opinion 
also ; he thinks that if the plaintiff had any matter of com- 
plaint against bishop Hobart, that it was competent to him 
to prefer such complaint before the proper authority of the 






245 

church, and then to have it enquired into and settled. He 
never heard that the plaintiff did pursue the steps in such 
case directed by the canon. Deponent says, that he believes 
fee is the person referred to in the 83d page of the " Solemn 
Appeal," relative to the office of assistant bishop in the 
state of Connecticut, and that the statement therein made 
relative to that matter, is wholly incorrect. 

On being cross-examined, deponent says, that when he 
attended bishop Moore and his presbyters, in November, 
1811, he was not settled in a parish, nor was it necessary 
that he should be; when Dr. R. C. Moore was interrupted 
at that meeting, as before stated, he was reading from a 
manuscript. Deponent thinks that as by the canon eight 
presbyters are sufficient to try a clergyman on a criminal 
charge, that number would be sufficient in the case of the 
plaintiff. Deponent does not think that it is incumbent on 
the bishop to summon all the presbyters in such case ; but 
that it is a matter in his discretion. Deponent has heard of 
several of the congregation of Trinity Church being dissa- 
tisfied with bishop Hobart and Mr. How, in relation to the 
dispute with the plaintiff; it may be half a dozen, or perhaps 
more. After the dismissal of the plaintiff from Trinity 
Church, by the publications in the newspapers against the 
vestry of Trinity Chuych, and Dr. Hobart and his friends, 
the disgust among the members of the church towards the 
plaintiff was increased. There were publications some time 
afterwards, in the form of pamphlets and hand-bills, on the 
side of the vestry of Trinity Church and bishop Hobart. 
He thinks he has seen a poetical production, in the form of 
a hand-bill, ridiculing the plaintiff; cannot say whether it 
was called the epitaph of Mr. Jones, nor when he saw it 
Deponent says, that in his opinion, in order to justify a pro- 
ceeding under the 32d canon, there need not necessarily be 
an attempt to accommodate among the parties ; but that it 
must depend on the nature of the case. Deponent was pre- 
sent at a meeting of bishop Moore and some of his presby- 
ters, in October, 1811, on the subject of the plaintiff; and 
further he saith not. 



2*6 

Interrogatories to be exhibited to the honourable Rums 
King, now in the city of Washington, a witness on the 
part of the rector and inhabitants of the city of New- 
York, in communion of the protestant episcopal church 
in the state of New- York, in a certain arbitration depend- 
ing between them and the rev. Cave Jones. 

First — Were youon the first of May, in the year 1811, 
and for any and what time prior and subsequent to that date, 
a member of the vestry of Trinity Church in the city of 
New- York? 

Second — Do you know of the existence of any controver- 
sies or differences between the rev. Mr. Jones and the vestry 
of Trinity Church, or the congregation thereof, at or about 
the period referred to in the preceding interrogatory? If 
you have such knowledge, state the origin and progress of 
such controversies or differences. 

Third — Were you present in your place as a member of 
the said vestry when the report of the committee, appointed 
to take into consideration a publication of the rev. Mr. 
Jones, entitled, " A Solemn Appeal to the Church," was 
read and considered? If you were so present, do you know 
of any general understanding or expectation at that or at any 
other time, on the part of the vestry, or of the individual 
members composing it, that all antecedent differences with 
Mr. Jones were settled and terminated by the said report, 
and the resolutions passed thereon ? What, according to 
your impressions, were the views and expectations of the 
vestry in passing the said resolutions, aud what were your 
own individual views and understanding on that occasion? 

Fourth — Do you know of any communications between 
Mr. Jones and the vestry of Trinity Church, on the subject 
of the said differences, other than the communication of the 
said report and resolutions, prior to the fifth day of Septem- 
ber in the year 1811 ? During the interval between that date 
and the publication of the said book, was the vestry informed 
by Mr. Jones, or otherwise, to your knowledge, of the sup- 
pression of the said publication j and was or was not the 



247 

said publication in fact suppressed during that interval, a© 
you know, or have any and what reason to believe? 

Fifth — Were you a member of the general convention of 
the protestant episcopal church in the United States, held at 
New-Haven, on the day of May, in the year 1811 — and 
did you attend the same? If you did so attend, do you 
know of the circulation of the said book among the members 
of the said convention, or others in the state of Connecticut, 
or elsewhere ? 

Sixth — AVhat, according to your observation, belief, and 
information, was the state of Trinity Church and its chapels 
and congregations, in reference to the rev. Mr. Jones, be- 
tween the time of the publication of the said book and the 
said fifth day of September, 1811, and upon what considera- 
tions, if any, was it deemed proper and necessary that the 
connexion between Mr. Jones and the vestry should be dis- 
solved? 

Seventh — Were you one of a committee appointed by the 
vestry, during that interval, to take into consideration the 
state of the church? Was that a standing or a special com- 
mittee? If special, what was the occasion and object of its 
appointment? Who acted as chairman, and who drafted and 
presented the report made to the vestry by the said com- 
mittee, on the said fifth day of September, 1811 ? If within 
your recollection, state the motives in reference, as well to 
Mr. Jones as the church, by which you were induced to re- 
commend the course of proceeding suggested by that report, 
in preference to a dismissal into a presentment and trial of 
Mr. Jones, and explain the grounds of the opinions ex- 
pressed in the said report relative to the two modes of pro- 
ceeding therein adverted to, in order to a dissolution of con- 
nexion between him and Trinity Church? 

Eighth — Have you for any and what number of years last 
past, been a member of the state and general conventions of 
the protestant episcopal church, and acquainted generally 
with its affairs and history ? Who, during that period re- 
ferred to, has exercised the office of diocesan bishop of the 
state of New-York, and has been acknowledged as such by 
the authority of the church ? 



248 

Ninth— What is the distinction between the office of as- 
sistant rector and assistant minister in Trinity Church, as 
generally understood in the vestry, and what, according to 
your recollection and belief, has been the general opinion 
and understanding of the vestry, and what your own indi- 
vidual opinion and understanding in relation to the tenure of 
the said offices respectively ? 

Tenth — Where, according to the general understanding 
of episcopalians, and according to your own view of the na- 
ture and plan of the government of the protestant episcopal 
church in the United States, resides the power of electing 
bishops and receiving the resignation of their jurisdiction ? 
What controlling power, if any, have the house of bishops, 
in relation to such elections and resignations ? If you have 
any information or knowledge on the subject of this inquiry, 
declare your sentiments concerning the points above sug- 
gested, and explain the reasons and grounds of the same. 

Eleventh — While a member of the said vestry, were you, 
at any time prior to the publication of the said book, in- 
formed by Mr. Jones or any other person, and whom, of his 
imtention to publish the same; and was not the said book, in 
manuscript, read or offered to you to be read before its publi- 
cation in print? If you were, when were you so informed,, 
and what advice or opinion, if any, did you express to Mr, 
Jones respecting such his intention ? 

Twelfth — Are you now a corporator of the corporation of 
the rector and inhabitants of the city of New- York, in com- 
munion of the protestant episcopal church in the state of 
New- York, or not, and if not, when did you cease to be 
such — and have you, personally or otherwise, any interest 
in the controversy mentioned in the title of these interroga- 
tions ? 

Thirteenth — Do you know of any other matter or thing 
useful for the said rector or inhabitants of the city of New- 
York, in communion of the protestant episcopal church in 
the state of New- York, to prove, in relation to their contro- 
versy with the rev. Cave Jones, besides what you have been 
particularly interrogated unto? If you do, set forth the 
same as fully and at large as if you were thereunto particu? 



£49 

lady interrogated, with the grounds and reasons of youtf 
knowledge and belief respecting such matters. 

Cross-interrogatories to be exhibited to the honourable 
Rufus King, now in the city of Washington, a witness 
on the part of the rector and inhabitants of the city of 
New-York, in communion with the protestant episcopal 
church in the state of New- York, in a certain arbitration; 
depending between them and the rev. Cave Jones. 

First— If to the second direct interrogatory your answer 
is, that there were such differences and controversies, please 
to explain what you mean or intended by differences and 
controversies. " Was there any difference or controversy on 
the part of Mr. Jones with the vestry? Do you not know, 
or did you not understand, that previous to the existence of 
any difference or controversy between Mr. Jones and the 
vestry, (if any such existed) there were differences and con- 
troversies between the rev. Mr. Jones, the rev. Dr. Hobart 5 
and the rev. Mr. How, or one of them ? And was there any 
difference or controversy, to your knowledge or belief, be- 
tween Mr. Jones and the vestry, other than what may be 
considered to have its existence from the resolution of the 
vestry, passed in the month of May, one thousand eight 
hundred and eleven ? 

Second — Was there upon the reception of the report re= 
ferred to in the third direct interrogatory, and after the reso- 
lution thereon, any expression of any member of the vestry ^ 
expressed in his place as member of the vestry or otherwise,, 
that there were to be, that there ought to be, or that there 
would be any further proceedings by the vestry against the 
rev. Cave Jones, in consequence of his publication of the 
sc Solemn Appeal?" If yea, when and by whom were these 
expressions used? and particularly please to answer, as well 
as your recollection will permit, as to the time when such 
expressions were made. Were there any such expressions 
previous to the receipt of Dr. Hobarf s letter to the vestry? 
If yea, how long before the vestry received the said letter ? 
Wfiten the sajd last mentioned resolution, of the vestry was 



passed in May, on6 thousand eight hundred and eleven, did 
you yourself then at that time, contemplate that there were 
io be any other ulterior proceedings of the vestry against Mr 
Jones, in consequence of his aforesaid publication ? 

Third — Did you not, some time after the publication of 
the " Solemn Appeal," and how long after, suggest to the 
rev. Dr. Harris, that the vestry expected the suppression of 
Mr. Jones's book, called the " Solemn Appeal," with the 
view that the rev. Dr. Harris should communicate such ex- 
pectation to Mr. Jones? and did not Dr. Harris shortly after, 
and when, inform you that Mf. Jones had suppressed the 
publication of the " Solemn Appeal ?" Was not your com- 
munication to Dr. Harris, on this subject, made in the 
month of June, one thousand eight hundred and eleven ? 

Fourth — What, according to your observation, belief, or 
information, was the state of Trinity Church and its chapels 
and congregations, in reference to the rev. Dr. Hobart ana 
rev. Mr. How, or either of them, between the time of the 
publication of the " Solemn Appeal, and the fifth day of 
September, one thousand eight hundred and eleven ? 

Fifth — If you were one of the committee of the vestry 
which reported on the fifth of September, one thousand eight 
hundred and eleven, was there ever any communication be- 
tween that committee and the rev. Cave Jones, in relation 
to the subject on which the committee reported ? 

Sixth— Was there ever, according to your knowledge, iit- 
formation, or belief, a person appointed to officiate as assist- 
ant rector of the vestry, previously to the appointment o* 
ifae rev. Dr, Beach, to officiate in that capacity, in the year 
One thousand eight hundred and eleven ? Is such an appoint- 
ment made by the vestry, or by the rector, and how is he re- 
movable ? 

Seventh — Do you know of any other matter or thing use- 
ful for the said Cave Jones, in relation to the matters before 
inquired of, besides what you have been particularly inter- 
rogated unto ? If yea, set forth the same as fully and at 
large as if you were thereunto particularly interrogated, witb 
the grounds and reasons of your knowledge" and belief res- 
pecting such matters/ 



m 

The answers of Rufus King to certain interrogations exhl* 
bited to him on the part of Trinity Church, in the city of 
New^York, concerning an arbitration depending between 
them and the rev. Cave Jpnes„ 

First — Upon the first day of May, 1811, I was a warden 
of Trinity Church; had been a warden thereof, according 
to my recollection, from the annual election in 1805, and 
continued to be so until the annual election of 1812. 

Second — I have no knowledge of any controversy or dif* 
ference between the vestry and the rev. Mr. Jones, before 
the publication of his " Solemn Appeal;" the controversy 
or diffetence which afterwards arose between them, owed its 
origin and progress to that publication. 

Third — I was present at the meeting of the vestry, when 
the report, mentioned in this interrogatory, w r as considered 
and adopted. My own views, and, as I believe, those of 
the vestry, in adopting this report, are explained by the re- 
port itself. My own expectations, and as far as I am in- 
formed, those of the other members of the vestry, were, 
that by the communication of this act of the vestry to Mr. 
Jones and to the bishop, Mr. Jones would be led to reconsi- 
der his conduct in the publication of his " Solemn Appeal ; ,? 
in doing so, that he would discover the danger of division 
and disorder in the congregation which his publication was 
likely to create, the influence it might have upon the ap- 
proaching election of a bishop, the blemish it might make 
upon the reputation of the church, should Dr. Hobart be 
elected and consecrated bishop; the irregularity of bringing 
his differences with his brethren before the public, instead of 
following the direction of the canons, which are obligatory 
on such occasions. As the " Solemn Appeal" was made, 
upon the eve of the meeting of a special convention, brought 
together for the election of a bishop tp assist bishop Moore, 
I thought that its influence upon that measure would be di- 
minished by the tenor of the report of the committee. 

With these expectations, the adoption of the report was, as 
regarded Mr Jones, for the purpose of admonition.; Jtnft 



t 



whether the vestry would become reconciled to him, wpukl 
therefore depend upon his future behaTiour. 

Fourth— I have no recollection of any communication be- 
tween the vestry and Mr. Jones, between that made in May 
on the part of the vestry to Mr. Jones, and the September 
following, when the vestry received from Mr. Jones his let- 
ter to them dated early in that month ; nor do I remember 
when, if at all, the vestry received information that Mr. 
Jones had suppressed the " Solemn Appeal." After the ge- 
neral convention at New-Haven in the month of May 1811, 
and as I believe, in the month of June following, in conver- 
sation with the rev. Mr. Harris, I observed to him that as the 
vestry had disapproved of the publication of the " Solemn 
Appeal," I had thought that Mr. Jones should immediately 
have suppressed it ; instead of which, that it had continued 
to be publicly distributed ; copies of it had been furnished to 
members of the general convention, and that it still continu- 
ed to be sold and circulated : I remember, and probably about 
the same time, to have made the same observations in the 
vestry, as evidence* that the report concerning the " Solemn 
Appeal," which had been adopted by the vestry, had failed 
to have the salutary influence upon Mr. Jones, that it was 
expected it would have had ; Mr. Harris afterwards, and as I 
am persuaded in the same month June, informed me, that he 
had communicated to Mr. Jones my observations to him — that 
Mr. Jones remarked, that he had not been aware that the 
suppression had been expected, but that the remaining copies 
should be withdrawn from the booksellers : which Mr. Har- 
ris said had been done. Upon this point I have no other in 
formation, and whether the conversation between me and 
Mr. Harris was communicated by me to the vestry, I do not 
recollect. 

Fifth — I was a member of the general convention at New- 
Haven in May 1811 — the " Solemn Appeal," as I firmly be- 
lieve, was known by the members of that body,- it was the 
subject of much conversation at New-Haven, and If I be 
not mistaken, was publicly alluded to, and in no favonijafole 
tejm^} in the convention. 






253 

Sixth— During the period mentioned in this interrogatory 
fclie state of Trinity Church and her chapels was that of divi- 
sion and disorder. The vestry by adopting the report of 
their committee in May, having expressed their disapproba- 
tion of Mr. Jones's publication — Mr. Jones and his friends, 
with activity and zeal, as I understqod, endeavoured to vin- 
dicate his conduct, and represented him as an injured and 
persecuted man ; while those who, with the vestry, disapprov- 
ed of Mr. Jones's conduct, with equal zeal and activity en- 
deavoured to establish their opinions among the parishioners : 
the consequence of this disorderly condition of the congrega- 
tion had been foreseen, and the fears of the vestry were jus- 
tified by the heat, uncharitableness and division which were 
extending themselves throughout the parish. The continu- 
ance of Mr. Jones as one of the assistant ministers, in this 
situation of the congregation, would, in my opinion, have 
given strength and permanency to this state of disorder; 
while his separation would naturally stop the further progress 
of the dispute, and in time re-establish the harmony that had 
prevailed in the congregation. 

Seventh — As well as I am able to recollect, it was B#me» 
time in the month of June, that the vestry appointed a com- 
mittee to take into consideration the state of the church; of 
their committee I was the chairman, who drafted, and in be- 
half of the committee presented to the vestry the report of 
September. This was not one of the standing committees 
which, according to my recollection, are appointed at the 
first meeting of the vestry after their annual election, but a 
special one. The subjects referred to the committee, as I 
understood, were the inability of the rector to discharge the 
duties of his office, the advaaced age and infirmity of the 
assistant to the rector, the expediency of providing additional 
help in the performance of divine service, and the disorder 
in the congregation, which had been occasioned by the pub- 
lication of Mr. Jones's " Solemn Appeal." The measures 
recommended by the committee for the purpose of putting a 
stop to this disorder, were the separation of the chapels, 
and the dissolution of the connexion with Mr. Jones. As I 
am desired to explain the views and motives which influent 



2&» 

«d me in recommending the course, which was aftewards 
adopted by the vestry to effect the dissolution of the connex- 
ion with Mr. Jones, as well as I am now able, I will endeav- 
our to do so. According to the general tenor of the canons, 
ike connexion between a minister and his parish is to con- 
tinue during good behaviour, and not to be dissolved except 
under the sanction of the bishop : the canons, however, allow 
that this regulation may be controlled by usages and con- 
tracts, which establish a different tenure in the place or 
office of a minister ; so that, where, by the tenor of the con- 
tract, as I conceive to be the case in respect to an assistant 
minister of Trinity Church, the place of a minister is held 
during pleasure, the connexion may be dissolved at the plea- 
sure of either party ; the canons not applying tq such con- 
tracts. But although this mode of dissolving the connexion 
hetween a minister and his parish, may in such cases be em- 
ployed, either party may forbear to make use of it, and in lieu 
thereof, may adopt for such purpose the course pointed out in 
the thirty-second canon, provided the controversy or differ- 
ence be such as is described in that canon. It must be im- 
material how such controversy begins, nor is its nature of 
any importance. Whether it arises from indolence or negli- 
gence, levity or imprudence, irregularity or ind,ecorum, dan- 
gerous examples or criminal conduct, seems to be immate= 
rial ; for any one of these causes may, and as I believe every 
one ol them has, become the occasion of differences which 
could not be settled between the clergymen and their pa- 
rishes. 

The parish complains, but the clergyman doe# not reform ; 
he persists in his delinquency, and the parish, as I have 
thought, may adopt the course pursued by Trinity Church in 
the case of Mr. Jones, to effect a separation. This course, 
as regards the rights of the clergy, and the peace of the 
church, is in my opinion, preferable to any other. It did not 
occur to me, while a clergyman affords to his parish contin- 
ual cause of dissatisfaction and complaint, that because he- 
does not complain of them, that therefore there is no contro- 
versy or difference between them. But it did seem to me to 
1}e true, where one party violates his duty, aikl t{ie oth^r b#$> 



S$5 

ing an interest in its performance, complains of its vioiatta 3 
that a difference exists between them. 

A disagreement existed between Mr. Jones and one of his 
colleagues. Mr. Jones by his " Solemn Appeal," resorted 
to a mode of defending himself and assailing his colleague,, 
which is contrary to the rules of his order, and which it must 
have been foreseen Would create division and disorder amongst 
his parishioners. The vestry disapproved of Mr. Jones's 
conduct, he persisted in the vindication of it. Observe 
ing the increase of the division and disorder of the con- 
gregation, the vestry became satisfied that its peace could 
be re-established only by the dismission of Mr. J one*. — 
Upon examination of the contract between the vestry and 
Mr. Jones, I became satisfied that the vestry by a vote 
of their board could dismiss Mr. Jones. This mode was 
recommended by members of the congregation, because it 
would be the most summary. But to do this without a hear* 
ing would at any time have been a questionable measure ; 
and, in the state of irritation that existed in the congregation, 
to have called upon Mr. Jones to defend his conduct would 
have brought on a trial, which might have confirmed the di- 
vision that already existed. In these circumstances the 
committee recommended, and the vestry adopted the course 
pointed out in the thirty-second canon ; and alleging the dif- 
ference between them and Mr. Jones which had arisen out 
of the publication of his " Solemn Appeal," they prayed foi° 
a dissolution of their connexion with him upon the terms of 
the canon. In doing this they avoided the appearance of be- 
coming themselves both judge and party ; and by submitting 
the decision of their complaint to the bishop and his presby- 
ters, persons of Mr. Jones's condition, whether such decision 
should continue or remove Mr. Jones, I myself, and as I can- 
not doubt, the vestry, confidently looked to its influence and 
authority, as the only means of restoring harmony to the con- 
gregation. 

Eighth— While I was warden of Trinity Church I was se- 
veral times, how often I do not remember, appointed a lay 
delegate to the state convention. I attended two or threes 
tneetings of the state convention. I wag a member anfl at- 



256 

tended the meeting of the special convention which elected 
Dr. Hobart to be bishop. I was also a member and attend- 
ed the state convention in October 1812. I was more than 
once appointed by the state convention a lay delegate to at- 
tend the general convention, but I have only attended the 
last general convention, which was held at New-Haven in 
May 1811. During the time that I was a member of the ves- 
try of Trinity Church, I understood and believed that bishop 
Moore, and he only, was the diocesan bishop of the state of 
New-York ; and until a question upon this point was raised 
by Mr. Jones, I never heard any doubt expressed respecting 
the same. 

Ninth — I have no recollection of having myself examined, 
nor of having heard the opinion of others upon this subject, 
until the present rector of Trinity Church became unable 
to meet with the Vestry. Upon examining the charter upon 
this occasion, I was of opinion that the assistant rector must 
be appointed in the manner prescribed by the charter, and 
that pursuant to its provisions, that he would hold his place 
during his natural life, subject to the limitations expressed in 
the charter. In respect to " the assistant ministers" of Trin- 
ity Church, it was my opinion that they do not hold ihek 
places by the same tenure. The contracts between them and 
the vestry expressing no other tenure, it has been my opinion 
that they severally hold their places during pleasure. Whether 
any lother instance has occurred of the appointment of " the 
assistant to the rector," than the late one of Dr. Beach, I am 
not informed ; but upon looking into the charter when Dr. 
Beach was appointed, I was satisfied of the necessity of such 
appointment, as in the absence of the rector, " the assistant 
to the rector" can alone preside in the meetings of the ves- 
try. Upon inquiry I could not find that " an assistant min- 
ister" of Trinity Church had ever presided in such meeting. 

Tenth — As I understand the subject, and as I believe it to 
be generally understood, (although upon this head I have no 
other information than the decision of our late convention) 
the whole power of electing bishops, and of accepting the 
resignation of their dioceses, is vested in, and exclusively 
belongs to the respective state conventions of clerical ant! 



2B7 

lay deputies ; and whether the person so elected be already 
a bishop or a presbyter, who according to the canons may 
become a bishop, the house of bishops neither have nor ought 
to have any power of control in either case. 

Eleventh — Some short time before the publication of Mr. 
Jones's " Solemn Appeal," I had a conversation with him 
upon that subject. Whether it was Mr. Jones or the rev. 
Mr. Harris, I am uncertain, but one or the other of them 
requested me to read Mr. Jones's manuscript, which I de- 
clined doing ; and in my conversation with Mr. Jones, I en- 
deavoured to dissuade him from publishing, suggesting the 
mischief which I apprehended would grow out of the publi- 
cation. 

Twelfth — I am not a member of the corporation of Trinity 
Church, nor have I, to my knowledge, any personal interest 
in the controversy between it and Mr. Jones. 

Thirteenth — I have nothing particular to answer to this 
interrogatory. 

(Signed) RUFUS KING. 
District of Columbia, to wit — On the 3th day of July, 1813 3 
before me, William Cranch, chief judge of the Circuit 
Court of the District of Columbia, came the within nam- 
ed Rufus King, and made oath in due form of law that the 
within and foregoing answers by him subscribed, to the 
annexed interrogatories, are true as stated. 
8 worn before me, 

(Signed) W. CRANCH. 

Answers by Rufus King to the cross-interrogatories concern- 
ing the matter in arbitration between Trinity Church and 
the rev. Cave Jones. 

First — I have endeavoured, in my preceding answer to the 
seventh direct interrogatory, to explain myself upon what I 
consider to have been the controversy or difference between 
the vestry and Mr. Jones, to which explanation I here refer ; 
A difference having existed between Mr. Jones and his col- 
league. Dr. Hobart, the subject was brought by Mr. Jones's 
" Solemn Appeal" before the congregation. Without exam- 
ining or expressing any opinion concerning this difference 

Kk 



258 

Between Mi\ Jones and Dr. Hobart, the vestry disapproved 
of Mr. Jones's conduct in his appeal to the public. By con= 
versation, by the interference of friends, and by the circula- 
tion of his " Solemn Appeal," Mr. Jones, nevertheless, en- 
deavoured to vindicate his conduct ; and so a controversy or 
difference arose between him and the vestry. I have no 
knowledge of any other difference between the vestry and 
Mr. Jones. 

Second — At the first meeting of the vestry after the pub- 
lication of Mr. Jones's " Solemn Appeal," one or more mem- 
bers, but I am uncertain which of them, adverting to the 
■ same, intimated an opinion, that immediate measures ought 
to be adopted to censure Mr. Jones. I myself expressed a 
hesitation in deciding any thing upon the subject at that 
time, and recommended a delay. Afterwards, when the re- 
port of the 18th of May was considered and approved, I 
thought it to be a temperate measure ; and I did hope that 
it would have the effect to induce Mr. Jones to retrace his 
steps* I have no recollection that any member of the vestry 
expressed an opinion at this meeting, that any further pro- 
ceedings should be had respecting Mr. Jones ; but it certain- 
ly was my own expectation, and, as I believe, must have 
been the expectation of others, should Mr. Jones persist in 
the circulation and vindication of his " Solemn Appeal," and 
thereby draw the congregation still further into the dispute 
between him and Dr. Hobart, that the vestry would be oblig- 
ed, in order to preserve the peace and union of the congre- 
gation, to adopt other measures to restrain Mr. Jones. After 
the appointment of the committee on the state of the church, 
it was suggested to me, according to my recollection, by 
members of the vestry, as well as by. others, that there could 
be no harmony in the congregation while Mr. Jones remain- 
ed among us. Great dissatisfaction had by this time mani- 
fested itself hi the congregation; the greater portion of whom 
.disapproved of Mr. Jones's conduct, while his friends were 
industrious in apologizing and justifying the same. In this 
state of agitation in the congregation, which had been brought 
about by Mr. Jones's conduct, there appeared to me no othet 



£5'9 

prudent course that could be pursued by the vestry, than 
that which was afterwards adopted by them. 

The dissolution of the connexion between Mr. Jone3 and 
the congregation would put an end to the unceasing discussion 
of his conduct : and it was my expectation, this being done, 
that the congregation would again become united and quiet. 
The terms of this separation were wholly referred to Mr. 
Jones's brethren; for my own part, for various reasons, I 
wished them to be liberal terms ; and as Mr. Jones's clerical 
character would be continued, it was my sincere hope, that 
he might form a new connexion that would .be satisfactory to 
him, and conductive to the welfare of the church. 

Third-'— I refer to my answer to the seventh interrogatory 
in answer to this. 

Fourth—- As I have already stated, I here repeat that the 
congregation was divided in opinion. The facts charged in 
the " Solemn Appeal" against Dr. Hobart and Mr. How were 
urged as excuses for Mr. Jones, and I cannot doubt that 
members of the congregation believed that Mr. Jones had 
been hardly treated. 

Fifth — No such communication was held. 

Sixth — In answer to this interrogatory, I refer to my answer 
to the interrogatory. 

Seventh — I have nothing in particular to answer to this in- 
terrogatory ; but I owe it to myself, perhaps to Mr. Jones, on 
this occasion to add, that whenever, in the, course of this un- 
happy business, I anticipated its consequences to Mr. Jones 
and his family, I felt great reluctance in proceeding ; and the 
measure finally adopted of applying to the bishop to dissolve 
our connexion with Mr. Jones, was resorted to, on my part, 
as the only remaining means by which peace could be restor- 
ed to the congregation. 

Rufus King. . 
District of Columbia, to wit : 

On the 8th day of July, 1813, the above named Rufus 
King came before me, William Cranch, chief judge of the 
circuit court of the district of Columbia, and in due form of 
law made oath, that the foregoing answers by Mm subscdb^d 



260 

to the cross-interrogatories hereunto annexed, are true as 
stated. 

Sworn before me, 

W. Cranch. 

The two following are documents accompanying the testimony 

for the defendants. 
Blay it please the bishop, 

By the 31st canon of the protestant episcopal church in 
the United States of America, adopted in general convention 
held in the year of our Lord 1804, and set forth by eaid con- 
vention held in the year 1808, it is provided, that every min- 
ister shall be amenable For any offences committed by him in 
any diocese, to the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese in 
which he resides. And by the first canon of the church in 
this state, passed in convention held in October, 1 802, it is 
declared, that every trial of a clergyman in this church for 
misbehaviour shall be, on presentment made to the bishop by 
the convention, by the vestry of the parish to which a cler- 
gyman belongs, or by three or more presbyters of the 
church. 

In virtue of the authority conveyed as aforesaid, and ac- 
cording to the mode thereby prescribed, we the undersigued 
pre&bvters of the church, ac ting under an awful senseof our 
duty as christians and as clergymen, and considering of how 
high importance it is to the prosperity of religion and of the 
ehurch, that the character of its ministers be preserved in- 
^'ioIate and unimpeached, or that unworthy ministers be pre- 
vented from exercising the duties of that sacred function, 
present to you, that charges of a serious and immoral nature 
are alleged against the rev. John Ireland, now residing in the 
town of Brooklyn, in this state; and we therefore request that 
an ecclesiastical court may be summoned to enquire into the 
said charges, agreeably to the 2d canon of this church, in con- 
vention held in October, 1802. In order to constitute spe- 
cific grounds of investigation and inquiry, 

1st. We present unto you that the said rev. John Ireland 
stands charged with having been in the hsMk while ia tfce 



261 

erereise of the ecclesiastical functions, of loaning money on 
usurious interest. 

2d. We present unto you, that the said rev. John Ireland 
did, upon relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn, behave to- 
wards the vestry of St. Ann's Church, in a manner derogato- 
ry to the character of a christian minister, and unbecoming a 
pastor taking leave of his flock. 

3d. We present unto you, that the said rev. John Ireland, 
after relinquishing his charge at Brooklyn as aforesaid, refu- 
sed to deliver up to the vestry, though frequently solicited, 
the communion plate, the church books, and the communion 
money; and that after he did deliver up the plate upon the 
settlement of another clergyman in said church and congre- 
gation, he still refused to deliver up the books and money as 
aforesaid, until the said clergyman should be regularly and 
canonically instituted, when he promised it should be done ; 
that since the said clergyman hath been regularly and canon- 
ically instituted, he, the said rev. John Ireland has still retain- 
ed the books and money as aforesaid, contrary to the wish and 
request of the vestry of St. Ann's church ; he still promising 
from time to time, that their request should be complied with $ 
which promise he has never yet fulfilled. 

4th. We present unto you, that the said rev. John Ireland 
did, some time in the month of October last, assail with in- 
decent language, and in a hostile manner, one of the vestry 
of St. Ann's Church, to wit, Mr. Samuel Sackett ; that he 
challenged the said Mr. Sackett to fight $ and did actually 
make an attempt to treat him with violence; in consequence 
of which conduct he the said rev. John Ireland was, to the 
disgrace of the clerical profession, bound over to keep the 
peace. These charges severally, we are led to believe, can 
be substantiated by sufficient evidence: and we request that 
the said rev. John Ireland may be condemned or acquitted, 
according as they shall or shall not appear to be founded in 
truth. 



In testimony whereof we have hereunto signed our names 
In New-York, this 28th day of February, in the year of our 
Lord 1809. 

(Signed) John Bowden, 

Cave Jones, 
Thomas Lyell, 
Thomas Y. Hov^ 
The Right Rev, Benjamin Moore, D. D. 

Know all men by these presents that we, William White, 
D. D. bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the state 
of Pennsylvania, presiding bishop; Thomas John Clagget, 
D. D. bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the state 
of Maryland, Abraham Jarvis, D. B. bishop of the protest- 
ant episcopal church in the state of Connecticut, Benjamin 
Moore, D. D. bishop of the protestant episcopal church in 
the state of New- York, under the protection of Almighty 
God, in Trinity Church in the city of New-York, on Friday 
the 14th day of September, in the year one thousand eight 
hundred and four, did then and there rightly arid caconically 
consecrate our beloved in Christ, Samuel Parker, D. D. rec- 
tor of Trinity Church in the town of Boston, of whose su£= 
iciency in good learning, soundness in the faith, and purity 
©f manners, we were fully ascertained, unto the office of 
bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the commonwealth 
©f Massachusetts, to which the said Samuel Parker had been 
-elected by the convention of said commonwealth. 

In testimony whereof we have signed our names, andcaus= 
ed our seals to be affixed. 

Given in the city of New- York, this fourteenth day of 
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and four. 

Signed Wm. White, L. S. 

Tho. Jno. Clagget, L. S. 
Abraham Jarvis, L. & 

BenJc Moore. !-«• .& 



283 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

Boston, May 25, 1813, 
Suffolk, ss. The foregoing is a true copy of an original 
certificate on parchment in the possession of Mrs. Ann Par- 
ker, widow of the late right rev. Samuel Parker, deceased j 
which copy I have this day carefully examined and compar- 
ed with the said original certificate. 

Quod attestor, Saml. D. Parker, 
Justice of the peace in and for the county 
of Suffolk, dwelling in Boston. 



The following depositions on the part of the plaintiff were 
drawn forth, the first two wholly, and the others in part, hytht 
testimony in behalf of the defendants. 

New-York, ss. John W. Montross, of the town of 
Montgomery, in the county of Orange, being duly sworn, 
deposeth and saith, that he came to the city of New-York 
with an intention of of commencing the study of divinity in 
the protestant episcopal church in the fall of 1806; and he 
first spoke to the plaintiff on that subject in the fall of 1805; 
before which time the deponent had no previous knowledge 
of him. The object of the deponent was to procure some 
assistance to enable him to prosecute the study of divinity, 
The plaintiff proposed to introduce the deponent to bishop 
Moore, which he did; but gave him no other encouragement. 
Bishop Moore received the deponent in a very friendly man- 
ner, and offered every encouragement he could desire. 
The deponent, however, after the said interview with bishop 
ftioore, returned to the country, and postponed taking any 
measures towards a removal to the city, or the commence- 
ment of the study of divinity, until the fall of 1806, when 
he did remove to the city of New-York for that purpose; 
and then had a second interview with bishop Moore, whose 
conversation and manner to the deponent was entirely chang- 
ed ; he informed the deponent that they had then; students 
enough, and that they did not wish to receive any students 
except such boys as were educated for the purpose. He at 



264 

the same time observing, that they had then eight in the col- 
lege at Schenectady, and he told the deponent, that he had 
better go to Mr. Jones ; upon which the deponent took his hat 
and left him. The deponent then determined to prosecute 
the study in his own means ; but finding them likely to fail, 
he again applied to the plaintiff to procure him assistance, who 
told the deponent that he would make the attempt to procure 
something for him. After waiting for about six months, the 
deponent became dissatisfied with the plaintiff, not receiving 
any explanation from him ; and was about making application 
to Dr. Hobart, when deponent was informed by Dr. Harris,, 
that Dr. Hobart was opposed to him ; and that the plaintiff 
had been very active in his favour. The deponent then 
wrote to Dr. Hobart, a copy of which letter he now produ- 
ces. JJe did this in the hope of removing Dr. Hobart's ob- 
jections, and without the knowledge of the plaintiff or any 
other person. In a few days after writing the aforesaid letter 
the deponent was informed by the plaintiff, that Dr. Hobart 
had shewed to him the aforesaid letter, and that he was very 
much displeased with the deponent for having written it; and 
the plaintiff also observed, that he was sorry it had been 
written. The deponent thereupon, and some time in the 
fall of 1808, waited on Dr. Hobart for the purpose of mak- 
ing any explanation of the aforesaid letter that might be 
necessary, when a conversation ensued, which lasted nearly 
an hour; and in which Dr. Hobart went on in a strain of vio- 
lent invective against the deponent and the aforesaid letter 3 
without allowing the deponent much opportunity for explana- 
tion or reply. In the course of Dr. Hobart's remarks on the 
aforesaid letter, he perverted the meaning of the deponent, 
and said that the deponent had therein accused the bishop of 
a devilish disposition of doing the deponent an intentional 
injury ; to which the deponent replied, that he had not men- 
tioned any person, and that Dr. Hobart could not apply what 
the deponent had written to the bishop, unless he knew that 
the bishop had done something to make the application pro- 
per. The deponent thinks that Dr. Hobart either said, or 
admitted by implication, that he had shewn the aforesaid 
letter to bishop Moore. In the aforesaid conversation be- 



£6,5 

tween Dr. Hobart and the deponent, the deponent mentioned 
what had passed between bishop Moore and him at their first 
interview, and how much deponent had relied upon the en^ 
couragement which he then received from bishop Moore; to 
which Dr. Hobart replied, poh ! I have many times said as 
much, to those whom I was determined to defeat. The de- 
ponent told Dr. Hobart that he, relying on the promises he 
had received from bishop Moore, had quit the practice of 
physic, and sold a small farm, and removed from all his 
friends to the city of NewYork, where he had but very few 
acquaintance, and that in consequence of his disappointment 
as aforesaid, the family of the deponent was reduced to ex- 
treme distress; to which Dr. Hobart remarked, that the de- 
ponent must not expect to move their pity as church officers, 
whatever they might do in their individual characters; and 
this was said in a very angry manner, as well as the conver- 
sation generally ; the deponent replied, that he did not want 
to move their pity, but only to induce them to do justice. Dr. 
Hobart said, that he had been opposed to the deponent from 
the first, on account of the manner in which the deponent had 
been brought forward; that the plaintiff had not consulted 
him, and that the bishop had not mentioned it to him : this 
was pronounced in a vehement manner,evincing the utmost de- 
gree of wounded arrogance. The deponent says that from 
the time of his first application to the plaintiff, until the in- 
terview aforesaid with Dr. Hobart, the plaintiff never said any 
thing to excite the prejudices of the deponent against Dr. Ho* 
bart,but on the contrary,explained his writings on controversial 
subjects* in a way favourable to Dr. Hobart ; and never made 
the deponent acquainted with the fact of Dr. Hobart's oppo- 
sition to him the deponent. Shortly after the conversation 
with Dr. Hobart before stated, the deponent mentioned to 
the plaintiff, the circumstances stated by Dr. Hobart, of 
his opposition to the deponent from the first, on account of 
the plaintiff's not having consulted him, Dr. Hobart, and the 
bishop not having mentioned to him the subject; to which 
the plaintiff replied, no, nor I never will consult him, nor 
will I, when I have any business to bring before the church, 
go about beforehand electioneering as he does: and added that 

Li 



266 

it would be a very tedious business to go and consult every 
individual in affairs of this nature, before it was brought be- 
fore them collectively- The deponent says, that he was a 
member of the theological society of the episcopal church in 
the city of New- York, from the early part of the summer of 
1808 until July 1809, when he left the city» Plaintiff occa- 
sionally presided in that society, and he never heard him, 
either there or elsewhere, say any thing disrespectful of 
Br. Hobart, except what is herein before stated. 

The deponent, on being cross-examined, says, that when 
he first applied to bishop Moore, as herein before stated, he 
had no family, but married in July, 1806; when he first ap- 
plied to bishop Moore, he told the deponent that he could 
have all the assistance that was necessary, and that he 
should be furnished with books from his library; and ob- 
served, that he supposed the deponent had something, to 
which deponent answered that he had; but nothing was said, 
as to the extent of the assistance, or the amount of the de- 
ponent's property. The deponent says that he had no pre- 
vious acquaintance with bishop Moore, and that the only 
knowledge that he had of the deponent, so far as he knows, 
was from the aforesaid introduction of the plaintiff. The 
encouragement and promises which he received from bishop 
Moore, as herein before stated, were given and made with- 
out any inquiry, by bishop Moore, of the deponent respect- 
ing his moral character, and before the deponent proffered, 
as he did during the conversation, to produce testimonials of 
hia character; there were inquiries made by bishop Moore, 
respecting deponent's literary qualifications. The deponent, 
on being required by defendants counsel to produce a letter 
written by him to bishop Hobart, and referred to for an ex- 
pression of his, in the deponent's direct examination men- 
tioned, produces a letter, dated 29th November, 1808, a 
copy of which is hereunto annexed. 

The deponent, on being again examined on the part of 
the plaintiff, says, that some time in the year 1808, he had 
an interview with bishop Moore, when the deponent renewed 
his offer to produce testimonials of his moral character, and 
bishop Moore remarked that there was no objection on that 



£67 

score, but said, either at that time or in a subsequent con- 
versation, that the deponent was too old; and that there 
was an objection on account of the letter which the depo- 
nent had written to Dr. Hobart; at the same time informed 
the deponent that if the standing committee would pass him, 
he, bishop Moore, would not have any objection. The de- 
ponent never made any application to the standing com- 
mittee, but has understood that the plaintiff did bring his 
case before some collective body, and produced documents 
there, but to whom he does not know, and further he saitti 
not. 

Copy of a letter from Dr. Montr oss to Dr. John H. Hobart $ 

dated 

November 16th, 1808. 

KeVe Sir, 

The inquiry whether it would be most expedient to 
afford me assistance to qualify myself for orders, or to apply 
all your funds to the education of boys, for that purpose, 
does not appear to me to be the one which justice dictates. 
Were I to act on a similar occasion, I would inquire whe- 
ther any promise had been made to the person, and what 
injury he had suffered in consequence of its being withheld. 

A promise of whatever aid I would need was made to me, 
and I have suffered much in consequence of its being with- 
held. 

In consequence of this promise, I parted one hundred 
miles from my friends and my business, and came to this 
place, where I eould hope for neither of them. My ac- 
quaintance here did not amount to six persons, and from 
them I could expect nothing. I have lived here a year and 
a half, without business or help from any one. The little 
which I brought with me is gone. My misery is now com- 
plete. There are no curses in this world that can add any 
thing to it — it is that of a wounded spirit. Were I an un- 
connected individual, my pride would repress complaint; but 
it is extorted by the tears of her, whom I have taken from 
opulence, and dragged down with me into the depth of po- 
verty. 



268 

I knew enough of the world to look for disappointments 
from mere worldlings; but that members of a christian so- 
ciety would deliberate about the expediency of fulfilling their 
promises, is what I did not anticipate. 

Had I experienced the repulse on my first application, 
which I hare since, happy would it have been for me. But 
to assume the charms of benevolence, and thereby raise ex- 
pectations, and afterwards to blast them with cold indiffer- 
ence, is a demoniac kind of sport. A sport, however, of 
which I have been the victim. It is peculiarly so, when 
those on whom fortune has lavished her favours, play it 
upon those whom she has turned adrift to the bufferings ot 
poverty. 

New-York, ss. George Warner, of the city of New- 
York, a witness produced by the plaintiff, being duly sworn, 
deposeth and saith, that he was formerly a member of 
Christ Church, and continued so until the spring of 1809, 
f when a misunderstanding took place between the rector, the 
I rev. Mr. Lyell, and some of the congregation, when the de- 
ponent and a number of others, to the amount of one hun- 
dred and fifty or two hundred, withdrew from that church ; 
this happened three or four Sabbaths before Dr. R. C. Moore 
was settled in St. Stephen's, and before he had accepted of 
the call from that congregation, and without his knowledge. 
The deponent says, that when it was understood that Dr- 
B. C. Moore was about to be settled in St. Stephen's, the 
deponent and a number of others, who had belonged to 
Christ Church, determined to attach themselves to St. Ste- 
phen's, if Dr. Moore was settled there. After Dr. Moore 
had accepted the call to St. Stephen's, and had arrived in 
this city, deponent requested such of the former members of 
Christ Church? as intended to join St. Stephen's, to meet 
Dr. Moore at the house of Mr. Scott, in the city of New- 
York, which they accordingly did: the meeting was called 
in order to give those persons an opportunity of becoming 
acquainted with Dr. Moore, and to have a conversation with 
him previous to their joining in the communion of the Lord's 
supper at St. Stephen's, which was to take place a few days 



Z69 

after. The meeting was called with the privity of Dn 
Moore, on the suggestion of the deponent, on account of 
there not being sufficient time, before the sacrament, to a£- 
Ford him opportunity to become acquainted with those per- 
sons, by calling on them individually. Dr. Moore dis- 
claimed all intention of persuading any to leave Mr. Lyell's 
congregation. Deponent thinks that he is better acquainted 
with the aforesaid transaction, than any other of the congre- 
gation; and he says, that he does not know, nor has he any 
reason to believe, that any means were taken by Dr. Moore, 
or any one on his behalf, to induce any one person to leave 
Christ Church, and to join St. Stephen's. Deponent says, 
that Dr. Moore knew nothing of the separation of the afore- 
said persons from Christ Church, or of their intention of doing 
so, until it was communicated to him by the deponent. 

On being cross-examined, he says, that he supposes that 
there were about one hundred persons who attended at Mr. 
Scott's as aforesaid; he thinks that about ninety of that 
number had belonged to the congregation of Christ Church, 
and about sixty of them joined St. Stephen's at that time. 
Dr. Moore made a religious address to that meeting. 

Being again examined on the part of the plaintiff, depo- 
nent saith, that before Dr. Moore accepted the call at St. 
Stephen's, several of the persons who, with the deponent, 
had separated themselves from Christ Church, as aforesaid, 
had connected themselves with other churches ; and he is 
well convinced that those persons who had left Christ 
Church, and joined St. Stephen's, would have connected 
themselves with some other church, if Dr. Moore had not 
been settled in St. Stephen's; and further the deponent saith 
not. 



THE arbitrators having determined to receive the pre- 
ceding depositions, &c. as testimony, and to reject the an- 
swers of the rev. Dr. Beach, and Mr. Isaac Lawrence, in 
consequence of their not having been examined previous to 
ih'e 15th of Jitij 5 



270 

Mr. Emhet rose, and said, that it probably would be 
r^rged by the opposite counsel, that bishop Provoost received 
his authority from the state convention. He should con- 
tend, that the authority of the bishop, in this country, was 
derived from the house of bishops. That with regard to 
bishop Provoost, he received his from the bishops who con- 
aecrated him, and not from the convention. 

He added, that he should now read the several authorities 
on which he should rely, and to which he intended to refer, 
in the course of the argument hereafter to be presented by 
him to the arbitrators. 

" Whence it is manifest, that as the christian church was 
governed by the three orders of apostles or bishops, priests 
and deacons ; so the supreme authority was lodged in the su- 
perior order of the apostles or bishops, from whom the 
priests and deacons derived their power, and without whose 
consent they could not lawfully perform any religious act." 
HobarVs Festivals and Fasts, p. 21. 

" If then it appears from their writings" (viz. of the fa- 
thers) " that episcopal governments universally prevailed in 
the primitive ages; that there were three orders of the mi- 
nistry constituted by Christ and his apostles, viz. bishops, 
priests and deacons ; that the first order alone possessed the 
power of ordination and supreme authority in the church ; 
this testimony of the fathers, united with the arguments al- 
ready adduced from scripture, will constitute an unanswera- 
ble proof, that episcopacy is founded on divine authority." 
Ibid. p. 25, 26. 

" From the foregoing view of the constitution of the 
church, it results, that the church is a visible society, regu- 
lar and well organized, spiritual and distinct from the world; 
that the christian priesthood, exercising powers that are 
purely spiritual, can derive its authority only from God; 
that therefore it is necessary that some mode should be in- 
stituted for successively conveying through all ages, the di- 
vine authority which at first instituted the priesthood ; that 
Christ, as the supreme head of the church, sent his apostles, 
as « the Father had sent him,' the instructors, priests and 






37£ 

rulers of the church; that the gracious promise which he 
made them, evidently implied, that the authority with which 
he invested them, was transmissive and to be continued „ 
through their successors, ' to the end of the world;' that 
from the concurrent evidence of the scriptures and primitive 
writers, the first order of the ministry called bishops, were 
successors to the apostles, in the divine authority of commis- 
sioning others for the ministry, and governing the church" 
Ibid. 35. 

" There is and ever will be the same necessity cf pre- 
scribing rules for the peace and good government of the churchy 
and the order and decency of divine service, that there was 
in the apostolic age : and consequently there is the same 
reason why this authority should be transmitted to the bishops 
in all ages, as any other part of the apostolic office." Ibid, 

Mr. Emmet next called the attention of the arbitrators to 
the following authorities, tending to show, that the metropo- 
litan in England, was similar to the house of bishops in the 
United States. 

" I am here to show what were the offices and privileges 
of those who were properly metropolitans; and they were 
these that follow : First, they were to regulate elections of 
all their provincial bishops, and either ordain or authorize 
the ordination of them. No bishop was to be elected or or- 
dained without their consent and approbation: otherwise the 
canons pronounce both the election and consecration null. 
The Kvpoc or ratification of all that is done, says the council 
of Nice, belongs to the metropolitan in every province. And 
again, if any bishop is made without the consent of the me- 
tropolitan, this great synod pronounces such an one to be no 
bishop." Bingham^s Antiquities of the Christian Church, b. 
2, ch. 16, sect. 12. 

" The election of a bishop was jointly in the hands of the 
clergy and laity of the bishopric or parish, which became 
vacant ; and Cyprian frequently acknowledges, that he vr as 
promoted to that honorable charge by the suffrage of the 
people. When they had elected a jbishop, they presented 



2T8 

him to the neighbouring bishops for their approbation and 
consent, without which his election was not valid" Brough* 
ton's Hist. Diet. v. 1, p. 159. 

" It is ordered by the fourth canon of this council, that 
when any bishop was to be ordained, all the bishops of the' 
province, where the vacant diocese lay, should come to- 
gether to ordain him : and if some of them could not come, 
at least three should ordain him, and the rest, signify by their 
letters, that they approved the person; and that all should he 
ratified by the metropolitan* Whence it is manifest, that the 
consent of the metropolitan, and the majority of the comprovin- 
cial bishops was then required to the appointment of any 
bishop, before he could be ordained." Bishop Potter on 
Church Government, ch. v. p. 466, 467. 

" Much we read of extraordinary fasting, usually in the 
church; and in this appeareth also somewhat concerning 
the chiefty of bishops. The custom is, saith Tertullian, 
that bishops do appoint when the people shall all fast. Yea, 
it is not a matter left to our own free choice whether bishops 
shall rule or no ; but the will of our Lord and Saviour is, 
saith Cyprian, that every act of the church be governed by 
her bishops." Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, b. 7, sect. 6, 
p. 333. 

Mr. Emmet. Bishop Provoost having stated in his letter 
to the house of bishops, " that at a late meeting of the 
church convention, he resigned his jurisdiction, as bishop of 
the protestant episcopal church in the state of New-York," 
it becomes necessary to inquire what is the meaning, ac- 
cording to ecclesiastical authority, of the word "jurisdic- 
tion," as used by bishop Provoost? And for the purpose of 
elucidating this posnt, I would refer the arbitrators to Bing- 
ham's Antiquities, from which I shall now read an extract. 

" Among the ancients, the words order, degree, office, 
power, and jurisdiction, when they speak of. the superiority 
of bishops above presbyters, mean but one and the same 
thing, viz. the power of the supreme governors of the churchy 
conferred upon them in their ordination, over presbyters, who 



are to do nothing but in subordination to tlwm. St. Jerome, 
who will be allowed to speak the sense of the ancients 
makes no difference in these words, ordo, gradus, omcium, 
but uses them promiscuously, to signify the pmver and juris- 
diction of bishops above presbyters and the whole church, 
which is, properly speaking, the very essence of their order P 
Bingham's Antiquities, b. 2, c. 1, sect. 1. 

Mr. Emmet. A question will also arise, whether a bishop 
can resign? And if he can, under what circumstances? On 
this point, I have no precise authority; but I have authori- 
ties which go to show, that if he can resign, it is in very 
rare cases; such as where a bishop is translated from one dio- 
cese to another ; and that even in this case he cannot be 
translated, consequently cannot resign, without the consent 
of the metropolitan, which we say, is the house of bishops ; 
and we contend, that the state convention in this country, is 
the same as the dean and chapter in England. 

" As no clerk could remove from his own church without 
the licence of his bishop; so neither might any bishop pre- 
tend to translate or move himself to another see, without the 
consent and approbation of a provincial council. Some few 
there were who thought it absolutely unlawful for a bishop to 
forsake his first see, and betake himself to any other. But 
when a synod of bishops in their judgment and discretion 
thought it necessary to translate a bishop from a lesser to a 
greater see, for the benefit and advantage of the church* 
there was no law to prohibit this ; but there are a thousand 
instances of such promotions to be met with in ancient histo- 
ry ; " as Socrates has observed long ago, who has collected a, 
great many instances to this purpose." Bingham's Antique 
Ues, Book 6. ch. 4. Sec. 6. 

" It was against rule that any bishop should desert one 
church, and transfer himself to another ; and indeed against 
reason, such a relation and endearment being contracted be- 
tween a bishop and his church, which cannot well be dissolv- 
ed." Barrow's Treatise of the Pope's supremacy, vol. I. 
p. 81 & 82. 

Mm 



-- Id places where the people had a share in electing thei? 
Lishops ; their election was void, unless it was approved, not 
only by their own clergy, but by the neighbouring bishops. 
For when Narcissus bishop of Jerusalem withdrew himself 
from his diocese ; we are told that the bishops of the neigh- 
bouring cities agreed to ordain Dius in his stead. Some time 
after this, Narcissus returned from the wilderness, where he 
had concealed himself, and was reinstated in his bishoprick 
by the consent of all parties. But he becoming through hi* 
great age, wholly unfit to execute his episcopal office, the 
christians of Jerusalem prevailed upon Alexander bishop of 
Cappadocia to undertake the care of their church, as the co- 
adjutor of Narcissus during his life, and afterwards to be their 
sole bishop. But this was not done Hill the bishops of the 
neighbouring cities had first consented. Sometimes the churches 
of greater cities elected for their bishops, those who were 
bishops of lesser cities before : yet such persons were not al- 
lowed to change their dioceses^ unless it was judged to be 
for the public benefit of the church — " by the judgment of 
many bishops," as we find it decreed in the Apostolical 
Canons. So that the neighbouring bishops at this time had 
authority to disannul the elections made by the people and cler- 
gy of any city, even when the bishop elect wanted not ordina? 
iion." Bishop Potter's discourse on Curch Government, p. 465. 
See, also, Broughton's Historical Dictionary, p. 469. — 
Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, title 61 Resignation" Ree's Cy- 
clopaedia, article " Church." 

Mr. Emmet. It m&y be contended, by the opposite side, 
ihat the conditions on which the house of bishops consecrated 
bishop Moore are null and void ; because as he had been elect" 
ed bishop, they had no power to attach any conditions or 
limitations, whatsoever, to the act of consecration. I shall 
now read some authorities to show, that they had the power 
to limit, as well as to ratify the election. 

;t On that melancholy event" (viz. the death of bishop 
Hose) " the clergy of Edinburgh met to deliberate upon their 
*ffairsj and advise among themselves,' whether it was propej 



uow to make any advance towards the choice of a successor 5 
which Jiaving been the primitive mode, they concluded was 
"their privilege, now the connexion of the church with the 
state, which had brought in another method, was dissolved. 
This was carried in the affimative. Upon the 28th of April 
they had another meeting, when the instruments of consecra- 
tion of the several bishops were laid before them by bishop 
Falconar, who in the name of his brethren, said, that though 
they were bishops of this church, intended for preserving the 
episcopal succession in it ; yet they did not pretend to have 
jurisdiction over any particular place or district ; and there- 
lore advised them to pitch upon a proper person to take the 
management of their affairs* So the next day, they conven- 
ed a third time, and with all the formality possible and pro- 
per for such a business, elected bishop John Fullarton to be 
bishop of Edinburgh ; which was immediately accepted by 
|iim, and ratified by his three brethren ; with this IhrJtaiiou, 
that he should not, as bishop of Edinburgh, succeed to the 
vicarious metropolitical powers, which bishop Rose had ex- 
ercised, but should only have a privilege to convocate his 
brethren when the exigencies of the church required, and 
preside in such meetings." Skinner's Ecclesiastical History 
of Scotland, vol. 2. p. 628. 

" Canon 5. That if the presbyters of any district shall 
happen to elect a person already vested with the episcopal char 
racter, the bishop so elected shall have no jurisdiction over 
that district, until his election be confirmed by the majority of 
the bishops : and if they shall elect a presbyter, of whose fit- 
ness for that office the bishops shall declare they have sui~ 
ncient reasons not to be satisfied ; in that case, the presby- 
ters shall be required by the bishops to proceed to a new 
election."— Ibid. p. 656. 

Mr. Emmet. We contend that a coadjutor bishop has no- 
thing to do with the spiritual powers of the church; that Ire 
has connection only with its temporalities: and that this is 
the difference between a suffragan and a coadjutor hzshon. 
%c bishop Gibson's Cdieti* 



27i> 

*i It was an ancient custom in the church, that when a 
bishop grew very aged, or otherwise unfit to discharge the 
episcopal office, a coadjutor was taken by him, or given to 
Mm: at first in order to succeed him; but in later timesj^ 
only to be an assistant during life : in such manner however, 
that being ordained bishop, the whole care was vested in 
Mm. 

" We find three coadjutors in one commission, given by 
archbishop Peckham to the bishop of London ; and the pow- 
ers given are, to collate to benefices of the patronage of the 
see, to institute clerks presented by others, and to grant 
commendas canonicas in suis casibus, i. e. dispensations to 
hold a second benefice for a time without institution ; the 
granting of which was in the power of the bishops; and 
they in fact frequently granted it. And, by another instru- 
ment, the same archbishop commits custodium sigilli to 
one of those three ; with this limitation, that he should not 
set it to any institutions or collations, but with the consent 
of the other two. 

" But there was this remarkable in the appointment, that 
none of the three were bishops, but presbyters only: the 
discharge of the duties, merely episcopal, being probably 
undertaken by a suffragan bishop. In like manner as we 
find it in the diocese of Litchfield, under the same arch- 
bishop; who having required the bishop to provide a suffra- 
gan for the mere spiritual purposes of the diocese, enjoins him, 
in the same instrument, not to collate to any benefice. 

" By these instances it appears, that whatever the prac- 
tice might be in ancient times, and in other countries ; here 
in England, the two ends of orders and of jurisdiction volun- 
tary, in the case of the inability of a bishop, were answered 
by two several persons; the first under the name of suffra- 
gan, and the second under the name of coadjutor. And 
though in subsequent times, we find little mention of the 
last ; yet curators or coadjutors to the beneficed clergy in 
the like circumstances, have been very common both before 
and since the reformation, as will appear in the proper place. 
And the reformatio legum urges that by parity of reason, co- 
adjutors ought to be assigned to bishops. Quem admodum 



277 

episeopi ministris inferioribus, cum jam vel propter morbum 
desperatum, vel propter senectutem, ecclesiarA ministrare 
diutius non possint, adjutores apponere debent; sic etiam 
illis, ob easdem causas ab archiepiscopo dabuntur," &c. 
Bishop Gibson's Codex juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani, v. 1. p. 
158. 

" In case of any habitual distemper of the mind, whereby 
the incumbent is rendered incapable of the administration of 
his cure, (such as phrenzy, lunacy, and the like) the laws of 
the church have provided coadjutors. Of these there are 
many instances remaining on our books, both before and 
since the reformation; and we find them given, generally, to 
parochial ministers, as most numerous, but sometimes also 
to deans, arch-deacons, prebendaries, &c. and no doubt they 
may be given, in such circumstances, at the discretion of 
the ordinary, to any ecclesiastical person, having ecclesias- 
tical cure and revenue. 

" The powers conveyed are, first in general terms, the 
cffke of a coadjutor; and then in particular, the looking after 
the cure, the receiving of the profits, and the discharge of 
the burdens; with an obligation to be accountable to the 
ordinary, when called upon. But I think the article of look- 
ing after the cu/re is a late clause ; having observed no more 
in the ancient appointments of this kind, even since the re- 
formation, than the administration of the revenues; which 
therefore exactly answers to the account that hath been al- 
ready given (p. 158) of coadjutors to bishops, as appointed 
only to take care of the temporalities. And, as there the spi- 
ritual part was committed by the metropolitan to a bishop 
suffragan; so here it was committed by the diocesan to a 
curate duly licensed. Not but the office of coadjutor to an 
incumbent was always committed to a clergyman; who there- 
fore, if not engaged in another cure, might be content to 
take upon him the spiritual part also, and have it accordingly 
committed to him by the bishop; but this was no part of the 
office of a coadjutor, as such , which in the case of presby- 
ters, as well as bishops, did anciently relate to the temporalis 
ties mh/." Ibid. vol. 2, p. 939, 040, 



2$$ 

v Here bishops ate styled suffragans, in *especi of tlitit 
relation to the arehbishop of their province; but formerly 
«ach archbishop and bishop had also his suffragan, to assist 
Iiim in conferring orders, and in other spiritual parts of his 
since within his diocese. These, in our ecclesiastical law, 
are called suffragan bishops, and resemble the chorepiscopi, or 
bishops of the country, in the early times of the christian 
church. How this inferior order of bishops may be elected 
and consecrated, is regulated by the 26, Hen. 8, c. 14, but» 
notwithstanding this statute, it is not usual to appoint them. 
They should not *be confounded with the coadjutors of a 
bishop ; the latter being appointed, in case of the bishop's 
infirmity, to superintend his jurisdiction and temporalities ; 
neither of which was within the interference of the former." 
Coke Litt. v, 3, b. 2, note 96. f. 

Mr. Emmet. For the purpose of showing the usage of the 
church of England, in the election, confirmation , and transla- 
tion of bishops, I refer the arbitrators to the following passa- 
ges from bishop Gibson's Codex. 

" The deanand chapter (signifying to^ the prince the death 
Qi the former bishop) are to pray leave to elect another, as 
appears by the tenor of the conge d'elire. Though a licence 
iiom the king was necessary, in acknowledgement of founda- 
tion and ancient patronage ; yet it was at the same time, a 
-matter of strict riglit, and could not be denied." Bishop 
Gibson's Cordex, vol. 1. p. 126. 

" The election from beginning to end, proceeds, seeming- 
ly, upon the conge d'elire, without any appearance of restraint 
from the letters missive, and in the same manner as if there 
were no such restraint ; and the only circumstance remarka- 
ble in it, is, the solemn declaring of the person elected, to 
the clergy and people, assembled in the church ; wherein 
we see the footsteps of the more ancient way of electing, and 
of the part which they had in the election." — Ibid. p. 127. 

" The archbishop to whom tlie confirmation and conse- 
cration of bishops within his province, doth of right belong, 
€onarmatio spectat ad archiepiscopum jure commimi, snitl* 



%7B 

I. de Athon. And the rule of the canon law is, Fo testa*/ 
sane vel Confirmatio, pertinebit per singuias Provincias ad 
Metropolitanum Episcopum : and, Extra conscientiam Metro- 
politan! Episcopi nullus audeat Ordinare Episcopum ; and in 
terms yet stronger, Illud generaliter est clarum, quod siquis, 
proeter sententiam Metropolitan^ fuerit factus Episcopus, 
hunc magna synodus (Nicen. 1.) diffinivit Episcopum esse not 
tfportere."—Ibid. 128. 

" In case of translation, no more is required, than confir- 
mation; but that and all that precedes it, is required and ob- 
served in case of translations, as much as in creations." — >■ 
Ibid. 129. 

" The dignities or benefices which a bishop was possessed 
of before his election, become not void, till after consecration 
in the case of creation^ and after confirmation in the case of 
translation." 

" Election is an incomplete act, which may be vacated 
many ways." 

" And it is observable, that though the act (25 Hen. 8, c. 
3) besides the penalty of not electing, hath provided plain 
and immediate remedy for the advancement of the person re- 
commended, in case the dean and chapter refuse to elect* 
namely, that he shall be presented by the king's letters 
patents; yet in case of election made, and a refusal to con- 
firm, there seems to be only a penalty on the person or per- 
§ons refusing, mithottt other remedy." Ibid. 133* 

Mr. Emmet. For an account of ecclesiastical synods and 
(heir powers, I refer the arbitrators to Broughtof^ from which 
I shall now read a short extract. 

" Provincial synods or councils, are those in which tht 
Mshops of one province only meet." And one reason as- 
signed for it is this; that if any clergyman chanced to he 
unjustly censured by the passion of his 7 bishop, he might 
have recourse to a superior court, and there have justice 
done him. 

" National synods are those in which the bishops of one 
nation ar$ assembled," When the irorld becanie dividect 



280 

into several kingdoms, it was found necessary, that all the 
churches of such or such a nation, should, for the sake of 
unity, and to avoid confusion, observe the same customs and 
usages. Hence national synods or councils were instituted, 
whose decrees were obligatory on all the churches of parti- 
cular nations or kingdoms." Broughtorfs Hist. Diet. vol. 2, 
p. 417. 



Mr. David B. Ogden^ 

May it phase your honors, 

THE manner in which this cause has been openecf 
has excited an embarrassment that I have never before felt- 
To accompany the gentleman through the wild, unconnected, 
and tedious course he has pursued, would be carrying me 
where I thought he ought to have gone, and where I am not 
inclined to follow him. 

Nor do I consider it necessary to notice the charges and 
insinuations which he has made against bishop Hobart and 
Trinity Church. There are, however, some points in his 
speech which I am willing to admit. 

I admit that Trinity Church is rich and respectable; and 
I admit, although I do not know the fact, that Mr. Jones is 
poor ; but, does it follow that because Mr. Jones is poor, he 
has a right to scatter the seeds of discord and dissention in 
the church, and. to break up her peace and repose? 

I admit that Mr. Jones is a native of the city of New- 
York. And is this to be urged as an apology for his assail- 
ing the ministers of the church, rebelling against her solemn 
decisions, and end eavouring to annihilate her tranquillity and 
happiness ? The case is similar to that of an unruly child, 
who enters his father's house, commences the destruction 
of its furniture ; and when reproved for his wanton conduct, 
replies, it is the mansion of my father; and I will, therefore* 
ruin and waste its furniture. Will such a justification be 3<t 
mitted by the arbitrators? 



281 

1 shall proceed to notice the points in dispute; and request 
the attention of your honours to the words of the bond en» 
lered into between the vestry of Trinity Church, and Mr. 
Jones, which I will now read. 

" And, whereas the said rector and inhabitants, and the 
said Cave Jones, have agreed to submit the said action, and 
all other the matters which could properly be discussed in a 
court of justice, in any suit or action between them, the said 
parties,"* &c. 

These words show, conclusively, that if a court of justice 
would not set aside the proceedings which have been had 
against Mr. Jones, the arbitrators have no right to do it. 

The first question that I shall discuss, is, whether a eour£ 
of law would interfere to set aside these proceedings? Upon 
this point, T contend that every religious society in this 
country, have a right to make their own internal regulations* 
The episcopal Church have established a constitution and 
code of laws for the government of their congregations and 
their priests. Nor has this right ever, before, been called 
in question. The plaintiff, by his various acts, has given 
his assent to them, and is as much bound by them, as he 
would be in a criminal case, by the laws of the land. 

By a reference to the form of ordaining priests,-}- the arbi- 
trators will perceive that Mr. Jones was not only bound by 
the most solemn promise, to obey those in authority over 
Mm, but he was also to obey the canons of the church. 
Among others, the 32dJ will now be examined by me. 

By this canoh, the bishop and his presbyters are made 
judges of the fact, whether a controversy does exist ? And 
whether it is of such a nature, and " has proceeded such 
lengths, as to preclude all hope of its favorable termination ?"' 
In the latter case, they are to declare the terms on which, 
the minister shall be separated from his congregation. 

* See p« 13: f See p. 19. f, $& p. 2U 



In the case Under consideration, the bishop and his pres- 
byters, these judges of the parties own choosing, have de- 
clared, 

Firstly, that a controversy did exist. 

Secondly, that there " was no hope of its favorable ter- 
mination," and 

Thirdly, the terms on which a separation should take 
place. 

What then is the nature of this arbitration ? It is an apr 
peal from this decision to a court of justice ; and this appeal 
Is made, on the part of Mr. Jones, in violation of his most 
solemn obligations. It is an effort to bring the authority of 
the church into contempt. It is an effort to bring the peace 
and harmony of every order of christians into scorn and ridi- 
cule. If any man doubts this fact, the result of the present 
controversy will, unfortunately, remove such doubts. If Mr, 
Jones has suffered, I would to God he had, after the manner 
of his Redeemer, suffered in silence. That he had thought 
more of the peace and prosperity of his church, and less o£ 
filling his pockets. 

It is a rule in common law, that a court will not set aside 
an award of arbitrators, but for corruption or mal-practice. 
In this case there is no charge of corrupt conduct. The 
bishop and his presbyters have fairly ana impartially decided 
the question. Why then are your honours called upon to in- 
terfere ? As there is no established church in this country.* 
there are no general laws applicable to the subject. And I 
submit to the arbitrators, whether, where there is no viola- 
tion of the peace; no violation of a contract, the civil 
courts have a right to interfere, and set aside proceedings 
like those which have been instituted against Mr. Jones? 

What is the act complained of by this man? That the 
bishop and his presbyters have suspended him from the 
exercise of his functions, as a minister. Have any civil 
court in this country the power to restore him ? Can they 
say, that he shall enter the church and perform those duties, 
which his superiors in that church have said he shall not per- 
form? 



2S3 

That courts of common law will not interfere with the de- 
cisions of ecclesiastical courts, will be seen by a reference 
to Bacon's Abridgment.* 

If it shall appear to your honours that a civil court have, 
no right to set aside the decision of the bishop and his pres- 
byters, then it follows, according to the bond already alluded 
to, that the present arbitrators have no such right. 

But it is said, that the 32d canon cannot apply to the case 
of Mr. Jones, because it was made subsequent to his con- 
tract with the vestry of Trinity Church. To this, I answei% 
that Mr. Jones, when ordained, promised, " reverently to 
obey his bishop and other chief ministers, who, according 
to the canons of the church, might have the charge and gov- 
ernment over him." Besides, the canon expressly declares, 
that it shall apply " in cases of controversy between minis? 
ters, who now, or may hereafter hold," &c. And to this Mr. 
Jones consented. But this canon did not introduce any new 
law. It was a mere declaratory act of what was the law of 
the church. And for the purpose of illustrating this point, I 
shall now read " the letter of institution, as given by the 
the bishop;"! passed at a convention, held in the state of 
New-York, on the 6th of October, 1802. This letter of in- 
stitution shows, two years before the 32d canon was passect, 
what was the law; and for this office of institution Mr. 
Jones voted, thereby acknowledging it as the law of the 
church. In 1804, the 32d canon was passed, and was, as a! 
ready remarked, merely declaratory. 

The next objection is, that the usage of Trinity Church 
was at variance with the canon, and therefore, that it could 
not be applied to the case of Mr. Jones. I say, that the ex 
ception in the canon is, " that it shall not be obligatory upon 
the church in those states or dioceses, with whose usages, &c. 
it interferes;" and that it is not intended to apply to a par- 
ticular church, such as Trinity Church, within a diocese; 
but that it evidently means the whole church within " a state 
or diocese." 

* Itf Bac. AM. title Ecch Court E, f Seep. Id, 



■2&& 

We have been told, in the third place, that this canon did 
not apply, because no difference or controversy existed be 
tween Mr. Jones and the congregation : and that it was a 
mere personal dispute, between Mr. Hobart, Mr. How, and 
the plaintiff. 

Can it be supposed that it was the intention of the conven 
tion that passed this canon, that there should be an absolute 
guarrel between the individuals of the congregation, and 
their minister, before it could be applied to their case ? 
Suppose Mr. Jones had become so unpopular, no matter for 
what reason, that the congregation would not go to hear 
him ; would not this be a sufficient cause for dissolving the. 
connection ? And were not the bishop and his presbyters 
competent to judge of the fact ? But to show that there was 
a difference, I refer the arbitrators to the testimony of Mr, 
King.* From the answers of Mr. King, who was one of the 
wardens of the church, it is evident that divisions did exist 
in the congregation. And the arbitrators will here observe, 
that the 32d canon peaks of divisions between rectors and 
assistant ministers, and their congregations. I would also 
refer them to the depositions of different witnesses,! to show, 
not only that this dispute existed; but that it was produced 
by the publication of Mr. Jones's book, entitled, " A Solemn 
Appeal" 

But, Mr. Jones, in his letter to the vestry, dated the 4th 
September, 181 \,\ speaks " of the unhappy differences ex- 
isting in the church." If he considered the controversy as 
inerely personal, between himself and Mr. Hobart, he cer- 
tainly would not have used these terms. And why would 
he, in the same letter, have said, '* that there was an un- 
feigned desire, on his part, to restore harmony to the 
church?" New, I ask the arbitrators, after this language on 

* See answers of Mr. King, p. 253, 254. 

| See depositions of Rev. R. C. Moore, p. 156. Mr. Clark, 
p. 204. Mr. Kingsland, p. 210. Mr. Kemper, p. 211. Mr. 
Rogers, p. 214, Mr. Ogsbury, p. 216. Mi\ Sivords, p. 219. 
Mr. Laight, p. 224, Mr. Bowdm, p. 24.3. . 

j Seep, 21, 



285 

the part of Mr. Jones; after thus admitting, that there was a 
want of harmony in the church, how can he now come here 
and declare, that there was no controversy between him and 
the congregation? 

Mr. Emmet. The gentleman has not taken the force of 
the objection, as I intend to urge it. If there was a contro- 
versy between Mr. Jones and the congregation, then I con- 
tend, the congregation should have made the complaint, and 
not the vestry. 

Mr. Ogden. And who are the congregation? Through 
whom are they to act ? most assuredly through the vestry ? 
and unless it is through that channel, they cannot act. 

The fourth objection is, that the 32d canon is a violation 
of Mr. Jones's contract with Trinity Church; and therefore, 
that it cannot be applied to his case. And, the gentleman 
has added, Trinity Church have shrunk from this investiga- 
tion. It is true; they have shrunk from it. And why? 
JBecause they thought the interests of religion would not 
be subserved by it. Because they thought the honour, the 
prosperity, and the peace of the church would be injured, 
Nor would they consent to a reference, until they found Mr, 
Jones was determined to bring the subject before a civil 
court. Then it was that they agreed to submit the matters 
in dispute to the present arbitrators, in the fond expectation 
of smothering discussion. They did hope that this, I had 
almost said disgraceful controversy, might have been thug 
hidden from the public eye. 

I now request the attention of your honours to Mr. Jones's 
letter of call.* This is the contract of which so much has 
been said. And what is it ? It contains nothing about con- 
ditions. All that is said is, that he is called " upon the same 
terms on which the other assistant ministers are placed." 
And what are those terms? Mr. Jones cannot now be per^ 
n^tte^d $o say, that he was ignorant of them, 

* See page 24, 



$85 

The arbitrators will observe, that the charter speaks only 
of an assistant rector.* Now I contend that Mr. Jones was 
not the assistant rector, because, the charter provides for 
only one officer of that description. Besides, the assistant 
rector must be named by the rector ; and Mr. Jones never 
has been so nominated. But admitting that he was assistant 
rector, then, agreeably to the charter, " for cause reasona- 
bly proved, he may be displaced by the said rector for the 
time being, by and with the consent of the said vestrymen, 
or any eleven or more of them." In confirmation, however,, 
of the idea that the office of assistant rector is different from 
that of assistant minister, I would refer your honours to the 
case of the rev. Dr. Beach,f who was, on the 11th of March 
1811, nominated by bishop Moore, assistant rector of Trinity 
Church. From this I infer, that if Dr. Beach had been pre- 
viously considered assistant rector, there would have been 
no necessity for this nomination. Since that period, Dr.. 
Beach having left the city of New-York, Dr. Hobart has 
been regularly called. 

By the testimony of Mr. Dominick,! it is intended to prove, 
that Mr. Bissett was called for life. And how does this de- 
position prove that fact ? It only goes to show that the ves- 
try were anxious *to avoid a public investigation ; that they 
were unwilling to act unkindly ; that they were anxious, as 
far as practicable to rescue from ruin the reputation of Mr. 
Bissett ; that they conducted towards him, as they have to- 
wards Mr. Jones, with tenderness and humanity : and if I 
am not greatly mistaken, the time will come, when Mr. Jones 
will sorely repent, that he had not followed the example of 
Mr. Bissett. 

The gentleman has contended that the resolution of the 
vestry on the 5th of Sept. 1811, admits that Mr. Jones could 
siot be removed. Now I assert that this resolution expressly 
declares, that " from the nature and terms of the engagement 
between the vestry and the rev. Mr. Jones, there can be lit- 
tle doubt that the same may, for sufficient cause, at any time 

* See page 22. f See p. 22. 



* See page 22. f S 

| See deposition of Mr, DommivJc, p. 125. 



2S? 

he dissolved by either party." * Suppose, then, the vestry 
had dismissed Mr. Jones, immediately, as they had a right 
to do : Should we not have heard, with increased din the 
cries of this man, that he had been cruelly and unjustly per- 
secuted ? We certainly should, and the vestry understood it, 
and therefore, were determined to avoid that course. 

The 30th canon recognizes the power of the vestry to re? 
move Mr. Jone3 ; but says, " he shall not be dismissed with- 
out the concurrence of the ecclesiastical authority of the di- 
ocese or state."f If, then, it was in the power of the vestry* 
thus to have dismissed Mr. Jones, why did they not do it ? 
The reason is obvious. They wished him to have a fair and 
Impartial trial by his peers. They wished to be free from 
the charge of having acted hastily, or intemperately ; or with 
evincing a disposition to harrass or persecute him; and, 
therefore, they referred the subject to the bishop and hi& 
presbyters; a tribunal, where justice to all parties might 
reasonably be anticipated, and this tribunal have according- 
ly decided the controversy. 

Suppose it to be true, for the sake of argument, that the 
contract with Mr. Jones was for life. What then ? Can it 
be possible, that after he has been suspended, by the bishop, 
and his presbyters, from the power of performing the func- 
tions of a minister, he has still a right to demand from the 
vestry his annual salary ? I repeat it, after he has, by the 
most wanton and unprovoked conduct, brought down upon his 
own head, an exercise of the ecclesiastical authority of his 
church, who have suspended him from the power of perform- 
ing the duties of a minister, shall he be permitted to demand"; 
modestly demand, the payment of his salary ? But it has been 
said, and will again be repeated, perhaps, that we have been 
the cause of his suspension. To this, I answer, that the 
contract with him was, that he should so demean himself as 
not to merit, much less to experience such an evidence of the 
dissatisfaction of his church. He promised that " he would 
maintain and set forward, as much as possible, quietness, 

*fr See p-. 20. f See page 5, 



2S§ 

peace and love among all christian people, and especially 
among those that were committed to his charge." 

A fifth objection is, that bishop Moore was not competent 
to set on this trial, inasmuch as bishop Provoost was dioce- 
san. I shall show that there would be as much propriety in 
pronouncing me diocesan, as in saying that bishop Provoost 
filled that office. 

Let it here be remarked, that Mr. Jones, with a full and 
perfect knowledge of all the circumstances, has recognized 
bishop Moore as his true and lawful diocesan. By the 2d 
article of the constitution of the church, it is provided, that 
the bishop shall have authority Ito call conventions. On 
the 20th of March 1811, bishop Moore, addressed a letter* 
to the rev. Dr. Hobart directing him as secretary to call a 
special convention. In the performance of this act, bishop 
Moore exercised the highest authority that the bishop of the 
diocese could exercise. The state constitution of the church, 
in the 6th article provides, that the secretary shall notice 
every member of the meeting of the convention, and specify 
for what purpose such meeting is to take place. 

Mr. Jones, in his book entitled "A Solemn Appeal" admits 
that he knew the object of the convention wfiich was to be 
held on the second Tuesday of May 1811. He not only 
knew that this call was made by bishop Moore, but he also 
knew the purpose for which the meeting was to take place. 
Now, then, I ask, if bishop Moore was not duly qualified to 
call a special convention ; if he was not diocesan, how came 
Blr. Jones to attend it ? How came he to do so absurd a thing 
as to attend a convention, called by an assistant bishop, for 
the purpose of electing another assistant bishop ? And this 
too, after the publication of his " Solemn Appeal" We find 
him then, knowing that bishop Bloore was not diocesan, ac- 
cording to his own declarations, attending an unauthorized 
convention, and that held for the purpose of electing a man, 
as he says, every way unqualified, and unworthy the office* 
This admission, alone, is sufficient to establish the opinion 
pf Mr. Jones, as to who was diocesan j an opinion which he 

* Seepage 2-5 , 



: 



s&9 

would yet have entertained, had not his learned counsel 
enlightened him on this subject. On this branch of the ar- 
gument, I refer the arbitrators to the " Solemn Appeal" p. 7, 
38, 39, 46, 47, 62, 63 and 66— and in p. 78 Mr. Jones speaks 
of bishop Moore, " as his worthy and much beloved dioce- 
san." 

By the 1st canon of the state convention, passed in 1802, 
provision is made for the trial of clergymen. The 2d canon 
prescribes the manner of trial; and the 3d the nature of the 
sentence which may be inflicted. 

I shall now show, that in 1809 this very plaintiff, who 
never considered bishop Moore as his diocesan, did present 
a fellow clergyman, Mr, Ireland, had him tried, sentenced 
and degraded. The original of this presentment is in the 
hand writing of Mr. Jones.* I would here beg leave to ob= 
serve, that this Mr. Ireland is now one of Mr. Jones's warmest 
friends, and a principal evidence on which he relies, in the 
present controversy. 

This presentment declares, that by the 31st canon of the 
church, " every minister shall be amenable for any offences 
committed by him in any diocese, to the ecclesiastical au= 
thority of the diocese in which he resides. And that every 
trial of a clergyman shall be on presentment made to the 
bishop, by the convention, by the vestry of the parish to 
which such clergyman belongs, or by three or more presby- 
ters of the church." In pursuance of this authority we find 
Mr. Jones presenting a brother clergyman. Now, I ask, 
how can he reconcile it to himself, that he should present 
Mr. Ireland before a mock tribunal ? That he should arraign 
him before an assistant bishop, whom he knew was not ca- 
nonically competent to examine into, and decide on the 
charges which were exhibited. How can Mr. Jones, as a 
hristian, palliate or justify such conduct ? But I have no 
doubt he believed, as every other episcopalian in the state 
believed, that bishop Moore was lawfully the diocesan : and 
I trust, before I finish, that I shall convince the arbitrators 
he thought right. 

* 8$e rev, Mr, Bowden's deposition, p* 43- 



20G' 

The episcopal church in this slate have, uniformly, from 
the resignation of bishop Provoost to the present period, ac- 
knowledged bishop Moore as their diocesan. In May 1811 
the whole church, without an exception, recognised him as 
such. There was not a single congregation in the state that 
did not send delegates to that convention ; and among those 
who attended were Mr. Harris and Dr. R. C. Moore. They 
all knew that the convention was called by bishop Moore ;» 
in doing which he exercised the highest prerogative of a 
bishop, and they knew the object for which it was convened- 
If they did not consider him diocesan, why did they not pro- 
Test against his summoning them ? And against the convene 
lion proceeding to business, under that call, after they had 
met ? 

It is admitted on all hands, that since the resignation of 
bishop Provoost, down to November 1811, he never did per- 
form, or attempt to perform, any act as bishop. 

By a reference to the journals of the convention, from the 
3 ear 1802, to the present period, the arbitrators will find that 
the convention, at their opening, have regularly acknowledg- 
ed bishop Moore as bishop diocesan. And here I will make 
a general observation, and I defy contradiction, that from the 
time of bishop Provoost' s resignation, until this controversy, 
there never was any act of the church, or of any congrega- 
tion, or of any minister, recognising bishop Provoost as dio- 
cesan. But that on the contraiy, from the time of bishop 
Moore's consecration, to May 1811, there was no act that 
did not recognise bishop Moore as bishop of the diocese (h 
facto et dejurc. 

I think that it must be admitted, even by our adversaries, 
that during the whole of the period alluded to, bishop Moore 
was the bishop de facto, if not bishop de jure ; and I aver, 
that the acts of an officer de facto are binding. 

Let us then inquire whether bishop Moore is not bishop 
dejure ? And here I would submit to the arbitrators, whether, 
inasmuch as there is no established church ; no ecclesiastical 
court, it does not follow, that the regulations of the respec- 
tive churches are to be exclusively adopted by themselves, 
rvitfcout the interference of government ? I contend, that we 






291 

have nothing to do with the laws of the land. Can it be 
possible that every other denomination, have a right to settle 
the disputes among their ministers and congregations, with- 
out the interference of civil law; and that the episcopal 
church alone shall be considered as differently situated ? Nor 
are we to resort to the government of the church of England, 
to determine the power or extent of authority of the episco* 
pal church in the United States. Suppose a sect of dissenters 
should rise up in England, who would not have a bishop, 
would you, in such a case, test any dispute among them, ac- 
cording to the laws of the established church ? or according 
to the rules and regulations of their own particular sect ? 

The fourth article of the constitution* of the church, pas- 
sed in 1789, provides, that the conventions of the different 
states, shall elect their bishops in conformity to such rules 
as they may respectively adopt There is no power relative 
to this subject, given to the general convention ; nor is any 
recognized. On the other hand, the general convention ap 
pear to have fallen into an error respecting the power of th# 
house of bishops. As a house of bishops they possess no 
power. They are only one branch of the legislative body, 
while the lay and clerical deputies constitute the other* 
The 3d article of the constitution! is explicit on this point. 
They do not consecrate as a house of bishops. It is done in 
iheir individual capacity, and any three of them may perform 
the act. 

I contend, that inasmuch as the bishop is elected by, anp 
receives his temporal authority from, tlie state convention, 
he must resign that authority to the body from whom he re- 
ceived it. But the gentlemen on the other side, say no ; he 
must resign to the house of bishops. Is there any Jaw or regula- 
tion of the church, which requires that the resignation should 
be made to the house of bishops ? I assert, that there is not 
What was the opinion of bishop Provoost himself on this 
point ? That opinion cannot be more clearly demonstrated^ 
than by a reference to his letter of the 7th of September 
1801 4 addressed to the house of bishops, in which he says, 

* Seep. 32. f Ibid. i Seep. 40. 



23£ 

" I resigned at the late meeting of our church convention^ 
my jurisdiction, as bishop," &e. Here, then, we find that 
bishop Provoost, so far from considering the house of bishops 
as the legitimate body, to whom he should resign, actually 
resigning to the state convention. 

By a reference to the Journals of the Convention,* we 
find also, a resolution, declaring, " that they return their 
thanks to the bishop for his kind wishes, and whilst they re- 
gret that he should have judged himself under the necessity 
of quitting so suddenly the exercise of the episcopal office," 
&c. And immediately after, they proceed to the election ot 
Dr. Moore, as bishop of the church in this state. Thus, the 
acts of the parties are complete. One having resigned, and 
the other having accepted the resignation. Bishop Provoost, 
in his letter to the house of bishops, does not pretend to re= 
sign to them. This communication appears to have been 
intended as a mere matter of courtesy, by informing them he 
had actually retired from all controul or jurisdiction over the 
diocese, 

And, Avhatever may have been the opinion or proceedings 
of the house of bishops, when the letter of bishop Provoost 
was first presented them, they appear afterwards to have 
abandoned the ground they had originally taken. And this 
cannot be placed in a stronger point of view, than it is by 
the certificate of consecration given to bishop Moore. The 
house of bishops proceed to consecrate bishop Moore, to use 
their own language, " into the office of bishop of the Protes- 
tant episcopal church in the state of New- York; to which 
the said Benjamin Moore, D. D. hath been elected, by the 
convention of the state, in consequence of the inability of 
the right rev. bishop Provoost, and of his declining all epis- 
copal jurisdiction within the said state." Thus, it appears, 
he was consecrated into the office to which he had been pre- 
viously elected by the convention; and it would seem, that 
this must have been done by the house of bishops, under a 
Conviction that their first opinion was incorrect and un- 
fbauidedl. Nor had they any authority t*> make an enquiry;, 

/ * Seep- &. 



293 

of the nature contended for by the gentlemen on the other 
aide. 

If the house of bishops, in their proceedings, m*ant to 
say, that a bishop could not resign his temporalities, much as 
I venerate and respect them, I am compelled to declare, 
that their opinion is directly in the teeth of a number of 
cases. But if they intended to be understood as saying, 
that he could not resign his spiritualities, then they are cer- 
tainly right. 

I shall cite a few cases, merely to show that the house of 
bishops never could have meant to say, that a bishop could 
not resign his temporalities. Burnet's History of the Refor- 
mation,*' will, I presume, be deemed good authority on this 
point; and BIackstone,f also, takes the same ground, adding 
that the resignation must be to the metropolitan. When I 
speak of temporalities, I mean his care over the churches, 
and his connection, in general, with a particular diocese. 
These are regulations solely dependent upon the state con- 
vention, and may be resigned to those who delegated the 
power or authority. For instance, bishop Provoost is, at 
at this moment, canonical ly authorized to perform any spiri- 
tual act, such as consecrating, confirming, &c. notwithstand- 
ing he has resigned the jurisdiction of this diocese. In like 
manner, a clergyman cannot resign his office as clergyman ; 
he cannot divest himself of that character: but, he may, at 
pleasure, resign his care of any particular congregation. 

In England, the bishop is elected by the dean and chap- 
ter; but he must resign to an arch-bishop: and from this cir- 
cumstance, the opposite counsel contend, that, although in 
this country, the state conventions elect, yet the resignation 
must be made to a higher authority, which, they say, is the 
house of bishops. Let it be remembered, however, that the 
dean and chapter, in England, are mere nominal electors. 
They receive a conge d'elirc, or order from the king, not only 
to elect a bishop, but also naming the person whom they are 

* See Burnett's Hist. Rev. vol. 1, p. 205 & 308, Vol. tip. 
242. 

f Blackstone's Com, vol 1, p. 332. 



%9h 

so to elect. Why then, Is the resignation made to the kins, 
through the arch-bishop? Because, from the king the bishop 
derives all his temporal authority. In this country, that au- 
thority is derived from the state convention, and therefore, 
to the state convention must the resignation be made. It is 
admitted that bishop Moore had a right to act until forbidden 
by bishop Provoost. When does bishop Provoost interfere in 
the case of Mr. Jones ? Not until after the proceedings h»d 
progressed so far, as to be beyond his controul! Even ad- 
mitting, then, that he had the power, which I deny, of pro- 
hibiting bishop Moore from convening his presbyters, and 
adopting the course he did adopt, shall it be said, because 
bishop Provoost neglected to do what he might have done, 
that, therefore, the proceedings of bishop Moore are impro- 
per and illegal? Such a doctrine, I am persuaded, will 
never be sanctioned by the present arbitrators. 

There a few observations more I shall submit on the point, 
who is bishop de jurel By a reference to the minutes of 
■the state convention,* held in September, 1801, it will be 
found that the convention did not consider themselves autho- 
rized to act " while the church w r as destitute of a bishop.'* 
It may be objected, however, in the course of this contro- 
versy, that notwithstanding the convention alluded to, and 
Idle clergy of the diocese have uniformly acted as if they 
considered the resignation of bishop Provoost complete ; yet, 
that the question has never been fairly examined and de- 
cided upon. I shall now proceed, therefore, to show, that 
at a meeting of the convention,! held in October, 1812, 
this question was brought before them, on the application of 
bishop Provoost, and after mature deliberation, finally de- 
cided by them. And I undertake to say, that a more unani- 
mous vote, on any question, where the shadow of doubt 
existed, seldom, if ever, has taken place. Now, what are 
your honours called upon to do, in the face of this solemn 
and almost unanimous decision? You are required by Mr. 
Jones to determine, that bishop Moore is not bishop dioce- 
san, and that bishop Provoost is. Do the arbitrators believe 

* Seep. 38. f Seep. 49. 



that they are more competent to decide a question, like th£ 
one at present under consideration, than an ecclesiastical 
court duly and canonically constituted? I am persuaded 
that they do not think so. 

Having then established, first, that bishop Moore is bishoji 
tie facto, and secondly, bishop de jure, I shall proceed to ex- 
amine the next objection which has been urged, and which 
was, that bishop Moore was a party, and sitting as judge 
and accuser. To this objection I reply, first, that he did 
not sit as judge, but merely presided, for the purpose of as*- 
certaining the opinion of his presbyters, and carrying into 
effect their determinations. Secondly, that from the preca- 
rious state of his health, he has not been in a situation, for 
a long time, to attend the meetings of the vesftry, and has 
not attended them. Thirdly, that bishop Moore, and I con- 
sider this conclusive, must ex necessitate, preside; because all 
irregular or improper conduct must be tried befoire the bishop 
and his presbyters, and if he could not sit, then none of the 
ministers of Trinity Cliurch could ever be tried on any 
charges that might be exhibited against them. It is similar 
to cases at civil law, which might be enumerated, where 
parties interested may be witnesses. 

Another objection is, that bishop Moore did not summon 
all his presbyters. By the constitution of the church of the 
state of New-York, article 3d,, the convention is to be com- 
posed of regularly settled ministers. The 29th canon* of the 
general convention provides, " that no minister, who may 
be hereafter elected into any parish or church, shall be consi- 
dered as a regularly admitted and settled parochial minister, in 
any diocese or state, &c. unti 1 he shall have been instituted, 
according to the office prescribed by this church/ 5 Now, 
I ask the arbitrators, taking tlhese two articles into considera- 
tion, who are to be consider ed the bishop's presbyters ? I 
contend, that it is those wh( > " have been instituted accord- 
ing to the office prescribed by the church." If not, does a 
man who has been settled h ere a short time, thus become a 
presbyter ? If that principl e is recognized, $en it follows 



206 

that the bishop must ride about the state, to ascertain what 
transient ministers are within his diocese, for the purpose of 
having them summoned to any meeting of the presbyters 
that is to be held. But if my construction of the canons of 
the church is correct, then the bishop has summoned all his 
presbyters. There are a few, Mr. Jarvis, and four or five 
others, who were not summoned, because they had not been 
inducted into any church or parish. Mr. Lyell* swears that 
he summoned all the presbyters within the state, who were 
entitled to seats in the convention; and that the only resi- 
dent ministers he did not summon, were Mr. Jarvis, Mr. D. 
Moore, Mr. Felch, Mr. Urquhart, and Mr. Burges. 

The next objection is, that some of the presbyters sum- 
moned, were parties to the controversy. In one breath, the 
proceedings are pronounced irregular and illegal, because all 
the presbyters had not been summoned; and now the objec- 
tion is, that too many have been summoned. How far these 
objections are consistent with each other, your honours will 
determine. As to the objection that Mr. How attended, and 
was a party, I reply, that the convocation was not for the 
purpose of trying any controversy between Mr. How and 
Mr. Jones: and although Mr. Jones may think, that by wan- 
tonly calumniating any of his brethren, he could disqualify 
them from a seat in the convocation, yet I am persuaded the 
arbitrators will think very differently. But again; if Mr. 
How was a party, was not Mr. Harris, Mr. R. C. Moore, and 
Mr. Feltus parties also? Has not Mr. Feltus published and 
acted precisely in conformity with Mr. Jones? I contend, 
therefore, that if the court was competent to try the case. 
the signature of Mr. How could not, in any event, vitiate 
the proceedings. If he was a party " utile par inutile non 
viatur." 

Another objection is, that all 3 or nearly all the presbyters* 
were pensioners of Trinity Church. True; I know that the 
bounty and liberality of that church has extended its benign 
influence throughout the state: that it has cherished and 
fostered our clergy in every hamdet and village; that it has 

* See testimony of Mr. Lyell, p. 232. 



29f 

HSiifeea^ii^gly endeavoured to dispense the cheering consola- 
tions of the gospel, where, but for its interference, many 
christians would be deprived of that heartfelt happiness 
But where would this doctrine land us? If it be true, as the 
gentlemen assert, that all the clergy are in the pay of Tr>. 
nity Church, and that circumstance is to disqualify theni 
from trying any of its ministers, does it not follow, that 
jhowever improper or irregular their conduct may be, all at^ 
tempts to investigate that conduct, would be vain and fruit- 
less, because, a competent court could not be summoned 
within the diocese? It must be evident to every reflecting 
man, that such a principle is fraught with incalculable evils* 

But it has been said, that Dr. R. C. Moore, when address- 
ing the convocation, was interrupted, and was not permitted 
to proceed. What was the question before the bishop and his 
presbyters ? They were called upon to decide, first, whe=i 
ther a controversy existed between Mr. Jones and his con- 
gregation ? Secondly, whether a separation was necessary ? 
and, thirdly, if it was necessary, on what terms it should 
take place? Any observations, therefore, not immediately 
connected with the subject under consideration, were irre- 
levant, and the party who attempted to make them, ought to 
have been interrupted. When Dr. Moore was interrupted, 
he was not speaking to the point, whether a controversy ex- 
isted; but was entering into a detail of all the causes which 
had tended to produce the controversy, and which the bishop 
and his presbyters, no doubt, wished to avoid. The arbi= 
trators will be pleased to recollect, that, until he finally 
broke off, he had not spoken one word as to the subject mat* 
$er under consideration.* 

I have now gone through, and I hope satisfactorily answer* 
ed, all th,e objections which have been made to the proceed* 
ings in the case of Mr, Jones, 

Mr. C olden* You have omitted noticing the objection 
that the presbyters had previously met, on the 5th of Octobers, 
atjd determined the question^ 

$ See br, Moore's speech} p, 1 64 t$ }.$$,■ 
* p. 



Mr. Ogde'k. This objection has not been before nrged . 
>jut I will now answer it. To this I reply, that from the tes- 
timony of Mr. Lyell, Mr. Bowen, and I believe Mr. Bowden, 
the arbitrators will find, that the meeting held in October was 
an informal meeting: that no secretary was appointed; no 
minutes kept, and that Dr. Beach was sent for to be present. 
Now I ask, would the judges meeting, previous to trying a 
cause, and talking over what was proper to be done, ever in- 
validate their proceedings as a court ? But suppose it had 
been an informal court, and the bishop had thought it was 
only necessary to summon a part of his presbyters, and after- 
wards discovered, that all must be summoned, would this in- 
formality have disqualified those gentlemen from sitting on a 
court, subsequently held, being eanonieaUy convened ? 

I am now about to proceed to the only remaining point in 
this cause ; and one that I enter upon with pain and reluct- 
ance. I mean the point of compensation. I regret most sin- 
cerely, the necessity of discussing this branch of the subject, 
because, I fear, I shall be compelled to use some remarks 
which may appear indecorous or harsh : but I shall endeavour 
lo govern myself as far as possible. 

Upon this point, it is to be taken for granted, that the su3» 
pension of Mr. Jones is correct and proper. It is to be taken 
for granted, that he has brought down upon himself all the 
troubles and vexations of which he so bitterly complains. It 
is to be taken for granted, that in publishing the " Solemn 
Appeal'' he has sown the seeds of discord and distraction in 
the ehurch, and that he is to be responsible for the crime. 

In this publication, Mr. Jones could have had but two ob- 
jects in view : first, to prevent the election of Mr. Hobart, or 
secondly, to defend his own character. If he wanted to pre- 
vent the election of an improper man, (as he asserts Mr. Ho- 
bart was) to the episcopate, he ought to have made his com- 
plaints to the convention and not to the community. If he 
was only anxious to prevent the election of Mr. Hobart, he 
cannot be justified in such a publication ; — a publication calcu- 
lated to excite unwarrantable prejudices and to inflame the 
public mind. If his motives were to prevent the election of 
Mr Hobart, the system which he adopted was but little bet- 



£90 

fer than that of a maniac. But may it please your honours, 
this was not the object. It was a mean and pitiful effort to 
excite public clamour, and to destroy the peace and repose 
of a man whom he envied and hated, but whom he dared not 
to arraign and face, before a competent tribunal composed of 
his equals. 

It may be said that the " Solemn Appeal'' was published in 
defence of his own character. But was Mr. Jones's character 
assailed ? his own witnesses admit, that until after the publi- 
cation of this fatal book, the misunderstanding was not known 
to more than four or five of the congregation; — that Dr. Ho- 
bart had always spoken in terms of respect of him ; — that he 
had never assailed his reputation; and that whenever their 
differences were alluded to he had always expressed himself 
with regret. I aver, then, that Mr. Jones's character never 
was assailed, by bishop Hobart. 

Mr. Jones, in the 5 th page of his book says, " I always 
loved him" &c. And he deliberately avows, that he noted 
down the conversations of the friend he " loved" for the base 
purpose of destroying him. Now I assert, that a more pitiful ; 
a more mean, and a more dishonourable course, never was 
pursued by one friend towards another. 

The conversation which took place at the funeral of Mr. 
Walton, respecting Mr. Hobart performing the duties of Mr. 
Jones, while the latter was absent from the city, has been 
alluded to, and spoken of with some asperity. If such a 
conversation, at such a time, was criminal, who introduced 
it? Mr. Jones.*-Who continued and carried it on? Mr. 
Jones. These trifling conversations, provoked by himself $ 
Mr. Jones went home and recorded of his " dearly beloved 
friend" evidently for the purpose of destroying his peace of 
mind, at some future period. But Mr. Jones never was the 
friend of Dr. Hobart ; and I shall shew before I close, that 
bis efforts have been uniform and persevering, to destroy his 
usefulness in the church. 

I shall now shew, from Mr. Jones's own witnesses, that Dr. 
Hobart's conduct towards him, invariably, was fair and hon- 
ourableo " That prior to 1808^ Dr. Hobart took pains to pre- 



mm 

went the feelings of Mr. Jones from being hurt, by tne man- 
ner of conducting the affairs of the church."* 

In another part of Dr. Harris's testimony the arbitrators 
will find, that when Dr^ Hobart tound there was no hope of 
living in peace with this factious and restless man, he had 
/ormed the design of " quitting the city on account of the 
differences which he knew would arise with the plaintiff."f I 
would also solicit the attention of the arbitrators to the testi= 
mony of the Rev. Dr. R. C. Moore, on this point. They 
will find that during seven years of the " strictest intimacy" 
between Dr. Moore and Dr. Hobart, " the latter was neyer 
heard to say any thing against Mr. Jones, or to speak of him 
in unfriendly terms."! These are the two principal witnes- 
ses relied upon by Mr. Jones in the present cause 5 and yet, 
from the testimony of these witnesses, it is evident that an. 
terior to the fall of 1808, Dr. Hobart never did speak in 
terms of disrespect of Mr. Jones, nor do any act, within 
their knowledge, not calculated to soothe and allay his envi- 
ous and jealous feelings* 

From an examination, however, of the testimony of other 
witnesses, on the part of the defendants, it will be seen that 
Dr= Hobart never did, to his confidential friends and com- 
panions—men to whom he could, with most perfect freedom, 
unbosom himself, speak in harsh or bitter terms of Mr c 
Jones, previous to the autumn of 1803; nor did " he endea- 
vour, directly or indirectly, to diminish their regard for 
him."§ 

I have now gone through the evidence of Mr. Jones's 
principal friends, and shown that they never heard any vio- 
lent or improper remarks from Dr. Hobart, anterior to the 
publication of the " Solemn Appeal" And nextly, I have 
examined the testimony of Dr. Hobart's most intimate friends 
and associates, and they unequivocally declare, that prior to 
■1803, they never heard from him an unkind or disrespectfui 

* Sie Dr. Harris** testimeny, p. 141. f Ibid: p. 142, 
% See ttMmony of Dr. R. C. Moore, p. 158. 
§ Scs testimony of Mr. Swords, p. 218. Mr. Pre?iiice, 22? 
fin Wyatt, 231* Mr. Bcrrim, 234= Dr, Bmden, 2M*. 



expression relative to Mr. Jones; but, that m the contrary* 
whenever the differences were alluded to, he invariably 
evinced feelings of regret. I ask. then, was this pitiful book 
intended to defend his character? By whom had it been as- 
persed or assailed? I am warranted in saying, not by Dr, 
Hobart, nor is there the shadow of testimony to contradict 
the assertion. 

But it may be said that Mr. Jones was offended and in* 
jured by Dr« Hobart, in their private conversations, and 
that this publication was intended, if I may use the expres- 
pression, for the purpose of taking revenge. Where was his 
charity ? Is it like a figure formed in ice, which, with a 
moment's heat is dissolved into water? I shall now take 
another view of the subject, setting the plaintiff and his in= 
genious counsel at defiance, to point out a single instance of 
hostility, on the part of Dr. Hobart, against Mr. Jones. 

I propose to show, that from the moment Mr. Jones was 
introduced in the diocese, he has been industriously engaged 
in the honourable work of endeavouring to destroy the repu- 
tation of Dr. Hobart, and preventing his elevation in the 
church. The mode adopted by him, for this purpose, was 
to excite envious feelings, and the most unwarrantable pre* 
judices against Dr. Hobart, by representing him as an inordi- 
nately haughty, and ambitious man. And for the purpose 
of establishing the fact, that such has been Mr. Jones's re- 
putable career, I shall refer the arbitrators to the testimony 
ol numerous witnesses, among others, Dr. Harris and Dn 
Moore,* the particular friends of Mr. Jones. 

I have now gone through the common declarations of Mr, 
Jones respecting Mr. Hobart : and I think I have shewn, that 
the plaintiff was scarcely settled in the diocese, ere he evinc- 
ed strong symptoms of jealousy, and endeavoured to infuse 
them into the minds of others. Having progressed thus far s 
I must solicit the attention of the court to a deliberate and 

* See testimony of Dr. Harris, p. 141, 142. Br, JR. & 

Moore, p. 158. Mr. Clark, p. 203. Mr. Bulkley, p. 229. 

Mr. Swords, p. 219, Mr, Wyalt, p. 231. Mr. Wilkins, $l 



most outrageous effort, on the part of the plaintiff to assassinate 
the reputation of Dr. Hobart. In a conversation with Mr. 
Prentice, Mr. Jones so expressed himself, as to leave an im- 
pression on the mind of the former, " that Dr. Hobart had 
been guilty of the embezzlement of public money intrusted to. 
him for a special purpose or had employed the same to the 
purchase of his own controversial writings, which was not 
the purpose to which it was intended to be applied."* It 
will be observed, that a more shameful and wicked attempt 
to stab the character of a man, than the one here spoken of, 
could not have been suggested by the most embittered and ma- 
lignant heart. A short time after, Dr. Hobart hears of this 
transaction, and expresses no emotions of resentment, but 
regrets that his character should be so mistaken, 

I now ask, was Mr. Jones an injured man, previous to the 
publication of his unfortunate book, the " Solemn Appeal ?" 
Did he publish it with any view or intention of defending 
his own character ? Or was it, under the influence of envious 
and jealous feelings, ushered into the world, for the vile and 
abominable purpose of destroying the peace and tranquillity of 
Dr. Hobart, and lighting the torch of discord and rebellion in 
the church? If to defend himself, where is the evidence that 
he had been assailed or injured ? And by whom ? 

But it is said by Mr. Jones, that Mr. Hobart w r as ambi- 
tious. True; he possesses a laudable ambition. The am- 
bition of doing all in his power to promote the welfare and 
prosperity of his church — the temporal and eternal happiness 
of his flock. It is his industry and zeal in that holy work 
that has excited the envy and hatred of the plaintiff. 

It is said, that he was unwilling to be reconciled to Mr. 
Jones. The conduct of Dr. Hobart was uniformly dignified 
and honourable. Previous to the publication of the " Solemn 
Appeal" he was the injured man. After its publication, he 
considered the church as assailed ; her discipline attempted 
to be trampled under foot : he witnessed her torn and dis- 
tracted, by the indiscretion and wickedness of one who 
ought to have sought, unceasingly, the best mode to perpetu- 

* See Mr. Prentice's testimony, p. 226. 






SOS 

ate her happiness and repose. He knew the refractory and 
rebellious heart of the plaintiff. Mr. Jones never dare avow 
the real object he had in view. Reconciliation with him, un- 
der such circumstances was impossible. Bishop Hobart's 
consecration vow forbade it. 

But mark the hypocrisy of the plaintiff. He visits Mr. 
Wilkins, at Westchester, and endeavours to persuade him; 
notwithstanding his advanced age, seventy years, to become 
a candidate for the episcopacy. Finding, that Mr. Wilkins 
would not become his tool, he proceeds to Dr. Beach, and 
after flattering his feelings, he endeavous to make him be- 
lieve, he was the only proper person, within the diocese to 
be bishop. In the autumn of 1808 Mr. Jones visits Mr. 
Prentice at Athens, and after representing Dr. Hobart as a 
hasty, ambitious, and ill bred man, unworthy of the ministe- 
rial office, undeserving of the confidence of the other clergy 
of the same connection, and as having been guilty of the 
embezzlement of public property,"* &c. — he proceeds to no- 
tice his friend Dr. Beach. And how does he represent this 
venerable prelate? " If bishop Moore, says the plaintiff, 
should drop off within a few years, Dr. Beach would undoubt- 
edly, or probably, come forward with his claims to be bishop, 
but he is wholly unfit for the office and ought not to be 
elected."! 

Now to what does all this amount? In the first place he 
endeavours to destroy Dr. Hobart's character, by the most 
profligate misrepresentations. In the next place, he pro- 
nounces Dr. Beach " wholly unfit" for the episcopacy. In 
plain English — I am the man. I am the only suitable and 
proper character to be bishop of the church in the state of 
New-York. The whole truth is, he was mortified, chagrin- 
ed and disappointed, that he could not accomplish his ambi- 
tious views; that he should have been deemed totally un- 
worthy that dignified and honourable office. But what will 
your honours think of a man who can thus wantonly and un- 
necessarily represent Dr. Beach, as " wholly .unfit" for the 
office of bishop, and a few months after, puff him up, and en- 

* See Mr, Prentice's testimony, p. 228. f Ibid. p. 227, 



3G& 

sleavotir to persuade him to stand as a candidate for that very 
office? 

But, let it be repeated, if Mr. Jones deemed the conduct 
of Dr. Hobart criminal or improper, why did he not arraign 
him, before the bishop, or the vestry? And the arbitrators 
will observe, that either course might have been pursued, 
under the canons of the^hurch. 

It is asked, what is Mr. Jones's offence? He has publish- 
ed a book ! — yes ; a fatal book, that has so uprooted the peace 
and tranquillity of the church, that I fear years of toil, on the 
part of its faithful labourers will not again restore it. But, 
they add, has not bishop Hobart published a book also ? And 
where is the difference ? Is there no difference between the 
assassin who assails me, and I who defend myself ? Is there, 
no difference between a man who basely vilifies and slanders 
his neighbour, and that neighbour, who is thus compelled to 
defend his own honor ? I think there is ; and I persuade myself 
this court will also think so. Bishop Hobart was bound, by 
every principle that is sacred, to protect and defend that cha- 
racter, which has become so valuable, not only to himself, 
but also to the church over which he has been called to 
preside. 

But it will be said, that on the part of the vestry, there 
was no disposition to reconcile the existing differences. A 
reference to the testimony of Mr. King wijl show, in contror 
vertibly, that from May 1811 to September following, there 
was no desire on the part of the vestry to press Mr. Jones ; 
or on his part to submit to the discipline of the church. 

We shall show, by the testimony, of Mr. Jones's own wit<? 
nesses, that he disregarded the peace of the church, when put 
in competition with what he termed, his honour: If that 
could not be satisfied;, no matter, if the harmony and prospe- 
iity of the church was forever torn up and destroyed. In a 
conversation between bishop Moore, and Dr. Harris in Sep- 
tember 1811, the former expressed a wish that the latter 
should " persuade Mr. Jones to quit his connection witfr 
Trinity Church; and he said, that if the plaintiff would do 
so, he had no doubt but that the vestry would do something 
very handsome for him, and that he would use his influence 



305 

in order that they should." To which Dr. Harris replied » 
" that he was authorized to say for Mr. Jones, that he would 
pay a respectful attention to any honorable terms that the ves- 
try of Trinity Church had to propose to him,"* &c. Now I 
contend that the vestry of Trinity Church, through bishop 
Moore, did endeavour, all in their power, to induce Mr. Jones 
to resign ; that they did it, because the peace and harmony 
of the church was broken up and destroyed; and because 
they were apprehensive that it could never again be restored, 
while the connection between him and the church remained 
undissolved. 

I shall show also, that if he has been reduced to poverty ; 
if his family have sutfered privations and pain, it is he that 
has produced them. He has sinned with his eyes opened, 
He was importuned and advised not to publish his " Solemn 
Appeal" The consequences were foretold to him ; and he 
nobly made up his mind to meet them. Among those who 
" advised him to be very cautious how he published,"! were 
Dr. R. C. Moore, Mr. Van Wagenen and Mr. King. 

To show the spirit with which this publication was made* 
To show the spirit with which the plaintiff was influenced 
towards bishop Hobart, I solicit the attention of the court to 
the testimony of Mr. Swords. In a conversation between 
Mr. Jones and Mr. Swords a short time previous to the pub- 
lication of the u Solemn Appeal," the former remarks, " This 
young man (meaning Dr. Hobart) is aiming at the top of the 
ladder, and we must do what we can to pull him down, and 
show him in his true colours. If he is elected to the episco- 
pate we shall have such a scene of tyranny exercised in the 
church, as has not been since the days of archbishop Laud." 

It is then evident that Mr. Jones has not published hastily 
or unadvisedly. He foresaw that the repose of the church of 
which he was a member, was to be destroyed. He foresaw 

* See Dr. Harris's testimony, p. 139. Dr. R. C. Moore ? 
p. 154. 

t See testimony of Dr. R. C. Moore, p> 157, Mr* Fan Wa- 
genen, p. 121. Mr. Swords, p. 219, 



SOS 

that the cause- of his master — that the cause of religion was 
to be brought into ridicule and contempt. He foresaw that 
he would be suspended from the exercise of his functions as a 
minister; and foreseeing all these direful consequences he 
determined to meet them. They have followed ; and why 
does he not meet them as a man ? I am not destitute of mer- 
eyl I most sincerely pity Iris family. But if he does not 
feel for them, can it be expected that this court will ? In re- 
membering mercy, they will remember justice. It is avarice 
that has driven him into a court of law. It has taken full 
possession of his soul. It is only for the purpose of putting 
money into his pockets that he has came here. Will this court 
attempt to restore him ? Impossible. An ecclesiastical court, 
canonically constituted, has determined that he shall not 
preach, and this court has not the power to' say, he shall, 



Mr. Wells. 

May it please the court, 

I shall not commence the argument that I am about 
to offer, with any promises of the moderation with which I. 
mean to conduct it, lest I should give a pledge that in the 
ardour of discussion I might forget to redeem. When I ad- 
vert also to the strong and reiterated assurances that was 
spontaneously made by the opening counsel in this cause* 
of the temperate course he meant to pursue in his argument, 
and recollect the manner in which their observance was ne- 
glected, it ought to afford me an additional admonition not to 
fall into the same error. If, however, catching the contagion of 
Ms example, I should at any time become extravagant; if 
my zeal should at any moment hurry me beyond the bounda- 
ries of reason and decorum, I will, at least, avoid being up- 
braided with the contrast between my own professions, and 
their performance : I will, at least, escape the reproach of be- 
ing the herald of my own inconsistency. Without making 
Stny engagements then, upon this subject, I shall without fur- 
Jther prefese- enter upon the examination which I propose te 



mr 

awake of the controversy submitted to your decision.; and if 
I shall be able to discharge the duty I have undertaken in a 
jnanuer, in any degree proportioned to the deep sense I feel 
i)f its importance, I hope I shall render some service not on- 
ly to the church for whom I am concerned, but to the interest 
of religion itself. 

The proceedings against Mr. Jones, which you are called 
upon to review, took place under the 32d canon of the gene- 
ral convention of the protestant episcopal church in the Unit- 
ed States.* The view which I shall therefore take of this 
subject, will be to enquire : 

1. Whether Bishop Moore and his presbyters had jurisdic- 
tion of the case on which they decided ? 

2. If they had, whether their decision is not conclusive^, 
so that neither the decision itself, nor the reasons on which 
it proceeded, can be examined into by any other tribunal ? 
except so far as relates to the compensation that was allowed 
to Mr. Jones, the consideration of which is opened by the 
ierms of the submission. 

3. Whether the compensation allowed by the bishop and 
Ms presbyters to Mr. Jones, ought to be altered ? 

Under the question of jurisdiction a variety of others will 
necessarily arise. The first which I propose to consider is, 
who is the diocesan bishop of the episcopal church in this 
state ? That bishop Moore has, ever since his consecrafion s 
been in -the full and undisputed exercise of the diocesan au- 
thority of the episcopal church in this state, has not and can- 
not be denied. As coon as he assumed the sacred office to 
which he was elected and consecrated^ he entered upon all 
the powers and duties of the diocesan, and continued to ex- 
ercise thera without the least doubt being ever expressed of 
his right to do so, until it arose out of the present controver- 
sy. Thus has bishop Moore, during a period of more than 
ten years, been in the undisturbed exercise of the diocesan 
authority, and therefore, de facto, at least the bishop of the dio- 
eese. Now all the judicial and ministerial acts of an officer 

* See the Canon, page 21-, 



SOS 

de facto are valid,f and hence these of bishop Moore, as dio- 
cesan de facto, are as legal and valid as if he were so dejure* 
The distinction too between an officer de facto, and a mere 
usurper, is well understood : the former always acts under 
the colour of some competent appointment or election to the 
office he tills, whilst the latter depends upon the mere posses- 
sion of the office acquired, without any pretence of right, but 
merely by a violent and fraudulent intrusion. Bishop Moore 
has uniformly acted as diocesan, in consequence of his elec- 
tion by the convention, and therefore his acts are entirely ex- 
empt from the imputation of being an usurper with which he 
has been charged in a manner as regardless of decorum as of 
legal precision. Alas ! how little must the counsel know of 
the character of that learned and pious prelate, whose acts he 
has rudely termed usurpations, who is alike distinguished for 
his unaffected piety, his christian humility, and apostolic pu- 
rity of life and manners. Though human infirmity has de- 
prived the church of his active services, yet his example will, 
I hope, be remembered and followed : though time will e'er 
long gather him unto his fathers, his mantle will, I trust, be 
left behind to cherish and protect the followers of the cross, 

I might here safely rest this part of the cause, and rely on 
the de facto exercise of diocesan authority by bishop Moore, 
acquiesced in, and confirmed for a series of years, both by 
the state and general conventions, as alone sufficient to up- 
hold and establish the validity of the proceedings against 
Mr. Jones, by bishop Moore, as the diocesan. But I will 
not leave it on this ground : I mean to place it on a prouder 
eminence, and to show that bishop Moore is as unequivocally 
the diocesan de jure, as he has confessedly been so de facto. 

In order to prove that bishop Moore is the rightful dioce- 
san of the episcopal church in this state, I intend to establish 
the following positions: First, that bishop Provoost could 
resign his episcopal jurisdiction. Second, that he could re* 
sign to the convention of this state only. Third, that he 

f 1. KydonCorp. 312 and 451, to 455 and the cases there Sted. 
lo Woodes. 314, 15* 6* Johns, Rep. 



300 

made such resignation, that it was accepted, and that bishop 
Moore was duly constituted his successor. 

First then, as to the right of resignation. It is objected 
on the other side, that the character of bishop is indelible, 
and, therefore, that bishop Provoost could not resign his 
jurisdiction. The whole fallacy of this argument consists 
in not distinguishing between the spiritual character of a 
bishop and his jurisdiction. The former is indelible, because 
it is derived from God; but the latter is a mere incident or 
appendage to the former, derived entirely from human au- 
thority, and, therefore, in no just sense partaking of the in- 
delibility which attaches to the former. The spiritual cha- 
racter of a presbyter is equally indelible with that of a bishop, 
and yet it is every day's practice for a presbyter to resign 
the care of one parish, and take upon himself that of ano- 
ther. What is this but resigning his pastoral jurisdiction 
over a particular parish or congregation? Suppose, after 
such resignation, that bodily infirmities or other causes should 
prevent his settlement in another parish, his spiritual cha- 
racter of presbyter would still continue, but his power, his 
authority, in other words, his jurisdiction over the parish he 
had relinquished, would cease, and their power to flil the 
vacancy would be unquestioned. The jurisdiction then of a 
bishop, is nothing more than an enlarged jurisdiction of a 
presbyter; the latter is confined to his congregation, whilst 
the former extends to his diocese. It one may be resigned, 
why not the other? Jurisdiction is the right of exercising 
human power or authority, either as respects the subject 
matter of it, or the territorial limits within which it is to be 
exercised. Hence it is evident that it is in its very nature 
a matter of human contrivance. The office of bishop and 
of presbyter are not of human institution : they are spiritual 
and derive their origin from the great author of our religion; 
but the place, the manner, and the circumstances, under 
which these offices are to be exercised, are entirely subject 
to human controul and arrangement- Whence did bishop 
Provoost derive his episcopal jurisdiction ? Was it not con- 
ferred by the convention of this state ? Whence does the 
fee tor of a particular parish derive his jurisdiction over it ? 



3i& 

Is It not from the vestry of his church ? To the spiritual 
character of a bishop, is superadded by the convention, Ins 
power and authority over his diocese, in like manner as is 
superadded to that of a presbyter, his power and authority 
ever his parish. Jurisdiction is a matter of contract, and 
may, therefore, like all contracts, be dissolved by mutual 
consent. In the case of episcopal jurisdiction, the parties 
to the contract are, the convention on the one hand, and 
the bishop on the other. They confer the authority, and the 
bishop receives it : that authority is to be exercised accord- 
ing to the rules already prescribed, or that may be afterwards 
prescribed by the. convention, to which the bishop, by his 
acceptance agrees to conform. And yet we are gravely told 
that this alliance, so evidently the result of mutual compact, 
is indissoluble : that the parties who could by their own vo- 
lition create this connection, cannot, in the same way, put 
an end to it. Let us for a moment look at the consequences 
of this doctrine. The convention have the right to prescribe 
and regulate the duties of the bishop. Suppose they should 
require the performance of a course of duty, that the dioce- 
san could not execute, either for want of leisure, or physical 
ability, or any other adequate cause, such for instance, as a 
visitation of all the churches within his diocese every three 
months. Now, if he can neither perform the duties assigned 
to him, nor resign his jurisdiction, in what a dilemma is both 
himself and the church involved! To act is impossible, to 
avoid acting, by resignation, is equally so. He must either 
do what he has not the capacity to do, or he is liable to be 
deposed for his default To such absurd lengths would this 
doctrine carry us. Should it be said, that the case I have 
put is an extreme one, and that the convention, under such 
circumstances, would appoint an assistant bishop, I answer, 
that extreme cases serve to test a principle, and that, though 
the convention might appoint an assistant, yet they might 
also refuse to do sq, and if the appointment were ever made, 
though it would obviate the inconveniences arising from a 
want of it, yet it would not prove that the diocesan could 
not resign. Again, the extent of a diocese is clearly de- 
pendant upon human regulation: it may he increased or c?> 



311 

mmislied at the pleasure of the competent authoritj*. Sup- 
pose the convention of this state should divide it into two 
dioceses, with a presiding bishop over each, would not the 
episcopal jurisdiction of whoever was then diocesan, be 
narrowed down to his own particular diocese ? Would it not 
cease as to the other? If then it can cease for a part* it 
can cease for the whole; and this affords one of the strongest 
proofs, that jurisdiction flows from the convention, who are 
the granting and regulating power: that as they give, so 
they can limit or take away, and consequently receive back* 
and leads irresistibly to the conclusion, that jurisdiction 
being entirely of human institution, regulated by human or- 
dinances, may, like all other human authority, be resigned 
into the hands that gave it. 

There is nothing, therefore, intrinsically in the nature of 
episcopal jurisdiction to prevent its being resigned. Is it 
then prohibited by the scriptures, or by any of the canons of 
the church ? Both, it is believed, will be searched in vain 
for such a prohibition: they are profoundly silent on the 
point ; and, in such a case, the maxim of our civil jurispru- 
dence is, in the language of lord Ellfenborough, silence is the 
highest eloquence. What, in this respect, has been the prac- 
tice and usage of our church? Our own country is too 
young;Ttnd the establishment of episcopacy in it, too recent, 
to have afforded any precedent on the subject : the only case 
■of the kind, that has occurred, is the one to which this 
part of the present controversy relates. But if I can show 
that the resignation of bishops, received the sanction of the 
pure and primitive ages of the church, and is in common 
practice in England to this day, it will, I presume, be al- 
lowed to add some strength to the reasoning already ad- 
vanced. 

The translation of bishops from one see or jurisdiction 
to another, has been common in all ages of the church. 
Now, I would ask, how this can be effected without a resig- 
nation of the see or jurisdiction from which the bishop is 
translated? By the very act of translation, he necessarily 
quits or resigns his episcopal jurisdiction over the diocese he 
leaves* The counsel opposed to us t aware thai this transla- 



312 

lion of bishops would be urged by us in favour of the right te 
resign, have been obliged, from the very authorities they have 
read themselves, to admit the right to this extent; but in 
order to deprive us of the just benefit of their admission, 
they strive to diminish its force, by insisting that it is in the 
ease of translation alone, that a bishop may resign, and for 
this purpose, Bingham's Church Antiquities, book vi. ch. 4, 
sect. 6, was referred to. I do not mean to dispute the au- 
thority of this writer ; it is deservedly great, and I shall, 
myself, afterwards rely on it for another purpose. Let us 
however see if it will support the doctrine for which it is 
now cited: for, if I do not greatly miscalculate, I shall, 
from his own authority, confute the argument of my learned 
adversary. After speaking of certain regulations, to prevent 
clergymen from removing from one diocese into another, 
without the consent of their bishop, the author proceeds to 
those which related to the translation of bishops from one 
see to another. " Nor," says he, " were the bishops so ar- 
bitrary in this matter, but that they themselves were under 
a like regulation, and liable to laws of the same nature. 
For, as no clerk could remove from his own church, without 
the licence of his bishop, so neither might any bishop pre- 
tend to translate or move himself to another see, without 
the consent and approbation of a provincial council. Some 
few there were who thought it absolutely unlawful for a 
bishop to forsake his first see, and betake himself to another; 
because they looked upon his consecration to be a sort of mar= 
riage to his church, from which he could not divorce himself, 
nor take another, without incurring the crime of spiritual 
adultery. To this purpose they wrested that passage of St. 
Paul, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, taking it in a 
mystical and figurative sense, as St. Jerome informs us. But 
this was but the private opinion of one or two authors, 
which never prevailed in the catholic church; whose prohi- 
bition of the translation of bishops was not founded on any 
such reasons ; but was only intended as a cautionary provi- 
sion to prevent the ambition of aspiring men; that they 
might not run from lesser bishopricks to greater, without the 
authority of a provincial synod, which was the proper judge 



31S 

in such cases." And again : whenever such synod, " in 
their judgment and discretion, thought it necessary to trans~ 
late a bishop from a lesser to a greater see, for the benefit 
and advantage of the church, there was no law to prohibit 
this, but there are a thousand instances of such promotions 
to be met with in ancient history, as Socrates has observed 
long ago, who has collected a great many instances to this 
purpose." 

Thus it is evident, that the author is treating of the man- 
ner in which bishops may be translated from one see to ano- 
ther, and expressly says, there was no law to prohibit it, ex- 
cept what was made by the synod, not on the ground that it 
was unlawful for a bishop to forsake his first see, but merely as 
a cautionary measure to prevent the ambition of aspiring men, 
It is equally apparent that the regulations which were made 
on this subject, were entirely of human sanction, owing 
their authority to the provincial synod, and springing en- 
tirely from motives of human policy. Nor is there any thing 
here to be found which narrows the right of resignation to 
the mere case of a translation; quite the contrary; for though 
it was the private opinion of some few, that a bishop could 
not forsake his see, or in other words, resign his episcopal 
jurisdiction, yet, that opinion never prevailed in the catholic 
church. 

If, however, it were even true, that the only instances to 
be found of episcopal resignations, were in cases of transla- 
tions, they would not be less destructive of the argument on 
the other side, because it is founded on the absolute incapa- 
city of a bishop to divest himself of his jurisdiction, and it 
would be enough to answer an argument resting on that 
ground, if we could show even a solitary case of valid re- 
signation. A single example of the kind would break the 
charm, and put to flight the mystic tie which is supposed to 
bind a bishop forever to his diocese, which makes jurisdic- 
tion, once conferred, to end only with life | for it would 
prove, that in that case at least, he had the capacity to re r 
sirn, and consequently, that his jurisdiction is in its nature 
resignable. But it is not true that the right of episcopal re- 
signation, is confined to the case of translation. I will 4rive 



she gentlemen even from this refuge, under which they strive 
to maintain their shattered force, by showing, that this right 
is one which may be freely exercised, at the pleasure of 
every bishop, except so far as restraints may be imposed 
upon it by the competent ecclesiastical authority, and which 
very restraints show that episcopal jurisdiction is altogether 
a subject of human government. 

One of my learned opponents was pleased to say, that he 
had not been able to find any authorities, directly in point;, 
on the subject of resignation. If he meant that he could 
find none that would support the doctrine for which he con- 
fends, I can readily believe him; but if he found none that 
stood directly opposed to him, then he has exercised less in- 
dustry and research, than he usually bestows on subjects 
that come under his diligent and scrutinizing mind, and much 
less than, in this cause especially, I can possibly suspect 
him of. The means of information were indeed so near 
him, that they could scarcely escape his notice ; for in the 
very book, and but a few pages from the passages he quoted, 
and on which I have just remarked, there is an authority on 
this pGint, upon which 5 if I were even destitute of any others, 
I should repose myself in confidence and security. In book 
vi. da, iv. sect. 2, of Bingham's Church Antiquities, after 
stating as a general rule, that neither bishops, presbyters,, 
nor deacons, who upon entering into their respective orders* 
were presumed to have dedicated themselves to God, could 
afterwards desert or resign their office, and especially to fol- 
low a secular life, the writer proceeds thus: 

" But this rule, as it was intended for the benefit of the 
.church, to keep the clergy to their duty, so when the benefit 
of the church, or any other reasonable cause required the 
contrary, might be dispensed with: and we find many such 
resignations or renunciations practised, and some allowed by 
general councils. For, not to mention the case of disability, 
by reason of old age, sickness, or other infirmity, in which 
it was usual for bishops to turn over their business to a coad- 
jutor, of which I have given a full account in a former book, 
there were two other cases whick come nearer to the matte? 



MB- 

m hand. One was, when a bishop, through the obstinacy* 
hatred, or disgust of any people, found himself incapable of 
doing them any service, and that the burthen was an intole- 
rable oppression to him: in that case, if he desired tore* 
nounce, his resignation was accepted. Thus, Gregory Na~ 
zianzen renounced the see of Constantinople, and betook him- 
self to a private life, because the people grew factious, and 
murmured at him, as being a stranger. And this he did 
with the consent and approbation of the general council of 
Constantinople, as not only the historians, Theodoret and 
Socrates, but lie himself testifies in many places of his wri- 
tings. After the same manner, Theodoret, says Meletius, the 
famous bishop of Antioch, when he was bishop of Sebaslia in 
Armenia, was so offended with the rebellious temper and con- 
tumacy of a perverse and froward people, that he abandoned 
them, and retired likewise to a private life. So Theodorus 
Lector tells us how Martyrizes bishop of Antioch, being of- 
fended at the factiousness of his people and clergy, upon the 
intrusion of Peter Fullo, renounced his church with these 
words: A contumacious clergy? a rebellious people, a profane 
church, I bid adieu to them all, reserving to myself the dignity 
of priesthood. Another case was, when in charity a bishop 
resigned, or showed hinaself willing to resign, to cure some 
inveterate schism. Thus Chrysostom told his people, that 
if they had any suspicion of him, as if he were an usurper, 
he was ready to quit his government, when they pleased, if 
■that was necessary to preserve the unity of the church. 
And so Theodoret tells us, that in the dispute between Fla- 
vian and Evagrius, the two bishops of Antioch, when Theo- 
dosius the emperor sent for Flavian, and ordered him to go 
and hav« his cause decided at Rome: he bravely answered, 
" Great sir, if any accuse my faith as erroneous, or my life as 
unqualifying me for a bishoprick, I will freely let my accu- 
sers be my judges, and stand to their sentence, whatever it 
be: but if the dispute be only about the throne and govern- 
ment of the church, I shall not stay for judgment, nor con- 
tend with any that has a mind to it, but freely recede, and 
abdicate the throne of my own accord, And yon„ sir; ma^ 



316 

commit the see of Antioch to whom you please." The em- 
peror lookeu upon this as a noble and generous answer, and 
was so affected with it, that instead of obliging him to go to 
Rome, he sent him home again, and bade him go feed the 
church committed to his care. IN or would he ever after 
hearken to the bishops of Rome, though they often solicited 
him to expel him. There is one instance more of this na- 
ture, which I cannot omit, because it is such an example of 
self-denial, and despising of private interest for the public 
good, and peace and unity of the church, as deserves to be 
transmitted to posterity, and to be spoken of with the high- 
est commendations. It was the proposal which Aurelius, 
bishop of Carthage and SL Justin, with the rest of the Afri- 
can bishops, made to the donatists at the opening of the con- 
ference of Carthage; that to put an end to the schism, 
wherever there was a catholic and a donatist bishop in the 
same city, they should both of them resign and suffer a new 
one to be chosen. For why, say they, should we scruple 
to offer the sacrifice of such an humility to our Redeemer ? 
Did he descend from heaven to assume our nature, and make 
us his members ? And shall we make any doubt to descend 
from our chairs, to prevent his members being torn to pieces 
by a cruel schism? We, bishops, are ordained for the people 
of Christ. What, therefore, is most conducive to the peace 
of christian people, we ought to do in reference to our episco- 
pacy. If we be profitable servants, why should we envy the 
eternal gain of our Lord, for our own temporal honours ? Our 
episcopal dignity will be so much the more advantageous to 
us, if by laying it aside we gather together the flock of Christ, 
than if we disperse his flock by retaining it. And with what 
face can we hope for the honour which Christ has promised 
us in the world to come, if our honours in this world hinder 
the unity of his church ? By this we see there were some 
cases in which it was lawful for men to renounce even the 
episcopal office, and betake themselves to a private life' 
the grand rule being in these and all other cases, to do what 
was most for the benefit and edification of the church, and 
sacrifice private interest to the advantage of the public.*' 



sir 

Here then the right of a bishop to resign his episcopal ju- 
risdiction, is distinctly laid down, subject to no other rule 
for its exercise, than to do what was most for the benefit and 
edification of the church. And we find too, that this princi- 
ple has been practised upon from the first establishment of 
our church, and that many such resignations had accordingly 
taken place, and were allowed hy general councils. It fol- 
lows, therefore, that until this right is prohibited or restrained 
by any canons which the general or state conventions may 
think iit to enact for that purpose, it may in this country be 
freely exercised. In Bishop Burnet's History of the Refor- 
mation, vol. i. p. 205 & 308, two instances are mentioned, 
of resignations by bishops in the time of Henry VIII. and 
in the second volume of the same work, page 242, William 
Reps, bishop of Norwich, was prevailed upon, in the reign 
of Edward VI. to resign his bishoprick, to make way for 
Thirlby, who was thereupon promoted to that see, " vacant 
(as the patent expresses it) by the free resignation of Wil- 
liam, the former bishop." The authority of these authors is 
confirmed, if indeed they stand in need of confirmation, by 
the standard writers upon English law. According to lord 
Coke, judge Blackstone, and professor Woodeson, resigna- 
tion by a bishop, of his see or jurisdiction, is pronounced to 
be valid, and is actually enumerated, by the two last writers, 
as one of the means by which a bishoprick may become va- 
cant. Co. Litt. 329 a. 1 Bl. Com. 332. 1 Wood. 

The effect of this resignation too, is precisely what we as- 
cribe it; the temporal power or jurisdiction being derived 
from man, returns to the power that gave it, whilst the spi- 
ritual character, derived from our Saviour, through the Apos- 
tles and their successors, remains, because, that not being 
the gift of man, can not be surrendered to man. Bingham, 
in the 3d section of the same book, and chapter last quoted, 
is express on this subject. " In these cases, (says he) a 
bishop, after he had renounced, was not to intermeddle with 
the affairs of the church, to ordain or perform any offices of 
the like nature, unless he was called to assist by some other 
bishop, or was commissioned by him as his delegate: yet he 
was allowed the title^ and honour, and communion of a bishop, 



Si 8 

as the general council of Ephesus determined it should be in 
the case of Eustathius bishop of Pergas, metropolitan of 
Pamphylia, mho had renounced his bishoprick, being an aged 
man, and thinking himself unable to discharge the duties of 

I have thus then shown, that episcopal jurisdiction is in 
its nature capable of being resigned, and that this does not 
Interfere with the spiritual character, which still continues 
when the former ceases, and that they ought not, therefore, 
to be confounded: that the resignation of episcopal jurisdic- 
tion is not forbidden by scripture, nor by the canons of the 
church; and that such resignation is conformable to the prac- 
tice and usages of the church, from its earliest ages, down 
to the present day, and to the law of England, in which the 
episcopal is the established church of the country. 

What is there then which stands opposed to this massy 
weight of authority, not the growth of yesterday, but ac- 
quiring its strength through the progress of ages ? I know of 
nothing but the opinion of the house of bishops expressed at 
Trenton, in the year 1801- I shall treat this opinion with 
all the deference which is due to the venerable body that 
pronounced it, for whom no one can entertain a higher 
respect as a man, or greater veneration as a christian, than 
I do. My duty, however, imposes upon me the necessity of 
showing that it has not the efficacy of law, and that being 
founded in error, it is stripped of all the weight to which it 
would be otherwise entitled.* That this act of the house of 
bishops, which cannot even be deemed a collegiate act, has 
not the foree of a law, is manifest from the organization of 
the general convention itself. The house of bishops form 
but one part of that convention ; the house of clerical and 
lay deputies the other ; neither can pass a law without the 
concurrence of the other : in the language of the constitution 
itself, " all acts of the convention shall be authenticated by 
both houses."f Now, it is not pretended that the clerical; 
and lay deputies ever approved or disapproved of this 

* See the opinion, p. 40. 

f See ike 3d art. of the Constitution, p* Z2. 



$19 

opinion; or that they were ever required so to do. And yet, 
m a case where there was no deliberation on their part, and 
where indeed nothing was submitted to them to deliberate 
upon, for it never was sent to them for their concurrence, 
they must be considered, by a sort of dumb legislation, as 
having concurred in the opinion of the house of bishops, and 
thus given to it the force of a law. But the truth is, it was 
not ever intended by the house of bishops themselves, as 
amounting to a law, or having any obligatory effect, as is 
apparent, not only from the form and nature of the thing it- 
self, but from bishop White's letter to Mr. Jones, written in 
answer to one from him, but which, as it did not suit his 
purpose, he thought he had the right to suppress ; but bishop 
White thought otherwise, and furnished bishop Hobart with 
a copy of it, which may be seen in his pamphlet, entitled, 
A Statement, &c.at page 17. " On this subject," says he, " the 
house passed an opinion, in the instrument to which you re- 
fer. Now, although I was a party to that instrument, and 
still think it was founded on correct principles; yet I cannot 
affirm, that the act of the bishops, with the circumstance of 
their being no opposition on the part of the other house, ren- 
dered the measure a law of the church. Still it stands on its 
own merits. If it be erroneous, it must be because bishop 
Provoost's precedent resignation was regular, which puts as* 
end to the discussion." This is evidence to which Mr> 
Jones cannot object, because, in the pamphlet, he is pleased 
to style Dr. HobarCs System of Intolerance, page 38, he refers 
to bishop White, as president of the house of bishops when 
the above opinion was expressed, and as one who " was con= 
sequently fully acquainted with the meaning and intent of 
that act." It is a gross mistake, therefore, to consider this 
opinion as amounting to a law, or as being the declared 
" sense of the church," or, " an adjudged case by the high- 
est tribunal," as Mr. Jones, in a moment of false and fan- 
cied triumph, chooses to call it. # It is but a mere matter of 
opinion, and so at the time, and since understood by those 
who gave it. If then it is founded in error, what becomes 

* Page 37 of his " System of Intolerance" &c. 



320 

of ii ? Are we to acknowledge that it is wrong, and yet be 
governed by it, as if it were right, on account of our respect 
for its authors? They very properly disclaim any such cour- 
tesy towards them ; they leave it to stand on its own merits^ 
not on theirs. I have endeavoured to show, in the preceding 
part of this argument, that the ground upon which the 
bishops have put their opinion, is untenable. It depends en- 
tirely, says bishop White, on the question, whether " bishop 
Provoost's precedent resignation was regular." So far as re- 
lates to the right to resign, I have, I trust, thus already shown, 
in opposition to this opinion, that it " is consistent with eccle- 
siastical order," with " the practice of episcopal churches," 
in all ages, and " with the tenor of the office of consecra- 
tion." If I have succeeded in this, then I have shown that 
the proceeding, thus far, was regular. That the resignation 
was in other respects also regular, I shall hereafter establish 
with equal certainty; and if I do, in the emphatic language 
of bishop White, it " puts an end to the discussion." 

I mean now to show that bishop Provoost having the right 
to resign, could resign to the convention of this state only. 
On this point we are told, that if bishop Provoost could re- 
sign, his resignation could be made to the house of bishops 
only, and not to the convention of this state, and that as it 
was not accepted by the former, it was of course invalid. 
On this subject, the fundamental rule is, that every resigna- 
tion must be to the superior; and Burn's Ecclesiastical 
Law, volume 3, page 321, lays down that principle 
and no other. Who then is the superior? It must be the 
person or body from whom the authority to be resigned 
is derived, or who represents that person or authority. Th© 
power which bishop Provoost meant to resign, was his epis- 
copal jurisdiction ; and there is no necessity of referring, as 
one of the gentlemen on the other side did, to Bingham'* 
Antiquities, to ascertain this.* The object of the reference 
was, to show that jurisdiction and order were the same, and 
hence, that as bishop Provoost's resignation would include 
his order or spiritual character, that it was void. But the 

* See Bingham's Antiq, b. ii. ch* 1, sec. 1* 



321 

authority referred to, will not warrant this reasoning, for -it 
will be found to be nothing more than a discussion of the 
question, whether the order or jurisdiction of a bishop is not 
entirely distinct from a mere presbyter: on which point there 
has been much learned argument, but not, as I apprehend, 
applicable to the case before us. From whom, then, did 
bishop Provoost derive the power which he meant to resign ? 
I answer, from the convention of this state, who, and who 
alone possess the power of electing bishops over this diocese, 
who prescribe their duties, and confer on ihem their juris- 
diction.* What is the extent of the power and authority of 
the house of bishops in this respect? It is merely by conse- 
cration, to confer, in virtue of divine appointment, the spi- 
ritual power, which alone is referred to in all the passages 
that were read from Nelson's Festivals and Fasts; but in all 
that relates to jurisdiction, they have no agency; that is 
given and regulated by the convention. If then the house 
of bishops do not clothe the bishop elect with his jurisdiction, 
how can they, in regard to that, be considered his superior ? 
The consecration is in consequence of the election: it is in 
conformity to it, and is the mere evidence of its consumma- 
tion: no sooner, however, is that office performed, than the 
power of the acting bishops, for, as I shall afterwards show, 
it need not be by the house of bishops, is exhausted. And 
upon the production of the requisite testimonials, they are 
bound to consecrate, unless indeed they shouki have con- 
scientious objections to the candidate presented them. But 
even in such a case, they could barely refuse; it would give 
them no rights in the nomination or election of any other per= 
gon. As the house of bishops can, therefore, take no part 
in electing bishops; as their temporal authority or jarlsdic= 
tion is exclusively the grant of the conventions by whom 
they are elected, the convention of this state must be the 
superior, to whom alone bishop Provoost could have re- 
signed. The convention is here, what the metropolitan is 
in England; and to allow the house of bishops to possess 

* Art 4, Cm, Ep. Ck. p. 32. Art. 7, Con, Ep. Ch. of 

this state* 

s s 



3££ 

that character or power, as seems to be contended for, by 
our adversaries, would be as repugnant to the nature and 
genius of our civil institutions, as it would be subversive of 
our plan of church government. 

In order, however, to show that a bishop in England does 
not resign to the body by whom he is elected, our convention 
is compared to their dean and chapter ; and the power of our 
convention, it is said, is merely to recommend to the house 
of bishops, who must be the superior, because they consecrate 
the candidate, or confirm his election by consecration, and 
that he should, therefore, resign to them. Before I proceed to 
the principal answer to this argument, I will state some pre= 
liniinary objections to it. 

In the first place, the house of bishops did not pretend that 
the resignation of bishop Provoost was irregular, because it 
was made to the convention, when it ought to be made to 
them. They put their opinion upon the broad ground, that 
there could be no resignation of episcopal jurisdiction. They 
advanced no metropolitan pretensions, and I venture to 
say, that that venerable body never entertained any thoughts 
of the kind, and would be the very first to disclaim them. 
This important branch of power, or more properly speaking- 
prerogative, was not claimed by the house of bishops; its 
discovery was reserved for the learning and research which 
has brought it to light on this occasion, and which seeks to 
enlighten that house in its duty and rights. It is really a 
matter of regret that so much useful labour should be lost, 
as I fear it will, for I cannot prevail on myself to believe 
that those for whose use it is so kindly intended will ever 
javail themselves of its benefit. Again, it is not correct to 
say that the house of bishops, as such, do perform the office 
of consecration, or confirm the election of the candidate there- 
by. It is true that consecrations usually take place during 
the silting of the general convention, when the house of 
bishops is of course convened; but they do not act, at least 
not necessarily so, as a house, for three bishops are enough at 
any time to consecrate another, and accordingly, during the 
recess of the convention they have this power, which in the 
case of bishop Hobart was actually exercised. A bishop 



32S 

'from any episcopal church on earth might, if requested, be 
present and assist in the consecration, and it would be per- 
fectly canonical. 

Chief justice Kent. Do I understand that the state con- 
vention elect, and that then three bishops may consecrate. 

Emmet. We contend that the convention elect, that the 
house of bishops, and of clerical and lay deputies pass upon 
that election by signing recommendations, after which any 
three bishops may consecrate. 

Wells. The gentleman is entirely wrong, and I am obli- 
ged to repeat, that a consecration may take place without the 
approbation or even the knowledge of either the house of 
bishops, or the house of clerical and lay deputies : so that 
it is not indispensably necessary that either house shoull 
pass upon the election or sign a recommendation. To shew that 
I do not speak without authority, I beg leave to refer the 
court on this point, to the fifth canon of the general convex 
tion, which is as follows : 

CANON V. 

Of the consecration of bishops in the recess of the general 
convention. 
If, during the recess of the general convention, the church 
m any state or diocese should be desirous of the consecration 
of a bishop, the standing committee of the church in such 
state or diocese may, by their president, or by some person or 
persons specially appointed, communicate the desire to the 
standing committees of the churches in the different states 
together with copies of the necessary testimonials ; and if 
the major number of the standing committees, shall Consent 
to the proposed consecration, the standing committee of the 
state or diocese concerned, may communicate the evi- 
dences of such consent, together with the other testimonials, 
to any three bishops of this Church, who may thereon pro- 
ceed to the consecration. The evidences of the consent of 
the different standing committees shall be in the form prescri 



bed for the house of clerical and lay deputies, in the general 
convention ; and, without the aforesaid requisites, no conse- 
cration shall take place during the recess of the general con- 
tention. 

Now it is manifest from this canon, that a bishop may be 
consecrated as well during the recess as during the sitting of 
the general convention, if the course prescribed by it is pur- 
sued; and consequently, that whenever a consecration does 
fake place during the recess ; neither the house of bishops, 
nor that of the clerical and lay deputies, are at all consulted 
on it- The standing committees of the churches in the differ- 
ent states are in such case expressly substituted for the house 
of clerical and lay deputies, and any three bishops of the 
churches for the house of bishops. So that this confirmation 
of the election of a bishop by his consecration, and which is to 
draw after it the right of resignation to those who thus conse- 
crate, does not belong exclusively to the house of bishops ; in- 
asmuch as it may often, and has been once already, exercised 
by three bishops of the church. The consequence of this, is, 
that the resignation of a bishop, must only be to the house 
of bishops where they were the consecrating body, and to 
the other three bishops, when the act was performed by them. 
By their own argument, therefore, my learned friends would 
leave the house of bishops shorn of half the honours which 
they have so gratuitously heaped upon them. Let us trace 
this a little farther : if the consecration is to operate as a con- 
firmation of the election of a bishop, so far as to attach to it 
the right of receiving his resignation, what becomes of the 
reasoning by which it is attempted to prove that the house of 
bishops were the superior to whom bishop Provoost ought to 
have resigned ; for certain it is, that he was not consecrated 
by them, and consequently they did not confirm his election, 
and of course were not entiUed to receive his resignation. It 
is well known that bishop Provoost was one of the first bishops 
in the United States, and that he was consecrated in England 
by the archbishop of Canterbury. Now if the argument ur- 
ged on the other side is correct, it clearly establishes that 
bishop Provoost, instead of resigning either to the state con- 



32& 

mention, or to the house of bishops, ought to have resigned 
'kis jurisdiction over the diocese of New-York to the archbishop 
of Canterbury ! To this extravagant length does this doctrine 
lead : it is impossible to adopt it, and stop short of this palpa- 
ble incongruity. I now return to the analogy which is sup- 
posed to exist between the dean and chapter in England, and 
our state convention. The dean and chapter, it i3 said, is 
the body who, upon a vacancy in the see, to which they be- 
long, elect a bishop to fill it ; but still if he resign, it is not 
to them, but to the archbishop or metropolitan ; and there- 
fore, say my learned friends, as the house of bishops is the 
metropolitan with us, our bishops, though elected by the state 
conventions, must not resign to them, but to the house of 
bishops. This is stating their argument fairly, and however 
specious it may seem at first glance, I shall not only refute 
it, but satisfy my own reasoning by the very case on which 
they rely. First then I ask, do the dean and chapter in Eng- 
land, like our convention, elect the bishop who is to preside 
over them ? certainly they do not, they are not the elective 
body, except as a matter of mere idle form : It would indeed 
be an abuse of the term to apply it to them. The principle in 
the church of England is, that the king is the head of the 
church, as he is of the state, and it is the king who in truth 
elects ; it is the king who is the superior, and to whom thro' 
his representative, as I shall presently shew, that a bishop re- 
signs. The dean and chapter elect a bishop in virtue of a writ 
of Conge d^elire issued to them by the king, commanding them 
to proceed to the election, and naming in the writ the very 
name of the person whom they are to elect. 1 Blk. Com. 377 
to 383. 1 Woodes. 294. They can e elect and return no other; 
and if they neglect for twelve days to make this election, 
for I am obliged to use the word for the want of an appropriate 
one, the king proceeds to make the appointment directly, 
which he would otherwise have made indirectly. Thus 
the sole power of electing belongs to the king. The dean and 
chapter are but the mere passive echoes of the royal choice. 
What just comparison is there therefore between our conven- 
tion and the dean and chapter ? Does our convention gra- 
ciously elect its bishops in consequence of a. writ of Conge 



S£6 

4?elire, from the house of bishops ? Does it not, on the con- 
trary, exercise the same free, independent and sovereign pow~ 
er upon this subject, that the king does in England? It may 
with much more propriety, therefore be compared in this res- 
pect, to the king; for the king like the convention elects, 
whilst the bishops there, as here consecrate; and yet the re- 
signation there, is not to the power that consecrates, but to 
the one that elects. I shall however be told that in Eng- 
land the bishop resigns to his archbishop. Agreed, but does 
he resign to the archbishop who happened to consecrate him ? 
No,but to the one who is his immediate metropolitan: and why ? 
because he represents the king ; he is the intermediate link of 
communication between the bishop and the king, who is the 
Siead of the church; in whose place he stands to receive what- 
ever communications are made to him. The resignation is 
therefore virtually to the king, because he, like our conven- 
tion, is the superior: and not the dean and chapter; and such 
is the well settled law in England. 1 Wood. 294, 295. Ac- 
cordingly whenever a resignation is made to the archbishop^ 
liow does he dispose ©fit ? Does he proceed to fill the vacancy, 
or in short to do any thing else than transmit the resignation 
to the king? It is he, and he alone, who then proceeds to act 
foy filling up the vacancy* To shew still farther that resigna- 
tion is always made to the electing and not to the consecrating 
authority, I would ask, to whom does the archbishop resign ? 
Is it to the archbishop who consecrated him ? No, but to 
the king himself by whom he was appointed. It must be ap- 
parent then that in England the dean and chapter are not the 
elective body, and that therefore the resignation is not to 
Ibem, but that the king is the elective body, and that the re- 
signation is accordingly in reality made to him. I have con- 
sequently a right to conclude that as our convention possesses, 
like the king, the sole right to elect a bishop, so like him it 
lias the sole right to receive and act upon his resignation. 

Having, as I hope, thus shown that bishop Provoost might 
resign his jurisdiction, and that the convention of this state 
was the only body to whom he could resign, I proceed to en- 
quire, whether he did in fact make such resignation, and if 



327 

so whether it was accepted, and who was chosen his succes- 
sor. 

That bishop Provoost meant to resign his episcopal juris- 
diction to the state convention, is not, I believe, disputed. 
That he did in fact resign to them, is equally clear, if he 
had the power to do so. " The right rev. bishop Provoost 
addressed the convention, and resigned his episcopal jurisdic- 
tion of the diocese"* Nothing can render this part of the 
subject plainer, than the language of bishop Provoost him 
self, as recorded in the Journals of the convention. He ne 
ver did resign to the house of bishops, nor did he ever 
think of doing so, or of asking their permission to resign, 
notwithstanding Mr. Jones, in his System of Intolerance, (p i 
35) has the hardihood to assert, that "- bishop Provoost sent 
a letter to the president of the house of bishops, to be laid, 
before that house, requesting permission to resign his episcopal 
jurisdiction over the church in the state of New-York." The 
letter contains nothing of the kind: it is merely a friendly 
and respectful communication to his right rev. brethren, oi 
what he had done, not of what he intended to do, much less did 
it ask for their authority or permission to allow him to resign. 
Yet Mr. Jones, when- he made this bold, not to call it wilful 
misrepresentation, had the letter to which he refers lying be- 
fore him : nay, not only putting correctness at defiance, but 
even forgetting all sense of shame, he actually transcribes 
this very letter, into the same page of the pamphlet where 
he mistates its contents: thus affording to every one who 
reads it, the direct means of detecting the imposition at- 
tempted to be practised upon them. Let the letter, however, 
speak for itself. 

New-York, Sept. 7, 1801. 
Eight rev. and dear sir, 

I think it my duty to request, that, as president of the 
house of bishops, you will inform that venerable body, that,, 
induced by ill health, and some melancholy occurrences in 
my family, and an ardent wish to retire from all public em- 

f See Journals of the Convention, p. 37. 



828 

ployment, I resigned, at the late meeting of our church con- 
vention, my jurisdiction as bishop of the protestant episcopal 
church in the state of New-York. 

I am, with great regard, 

Dear and right rev. sir, 

Your affectionate brother, 

SAMUEL PROVOOST. 
Right, rev. hishop White. 

In what part of this letter is to be found the request for 
permission to resign ? A request for permission to do, what 
was already done. I have, says bishop Provoost, " resigned 
at the late meeting of our church convention" &c. And yet 
this letter is tortured into a formal application to the house of 
bishops, to give bishop Provoost permission to do an act 
which he plainly tells them he had already performed ; which 
he does not even ask them to approve of or confirm, and 
which he evidently considers valid without any interference 
whatever on their part. But I will not longer dwell on this 
manifest perversion. I return to the undeniable fact, stand- 
ing on record in the journals of the convention, that bishop 
Provoost did, as far as could depend upon his act, resign his 
episcopal jurisdiction to the convention. 

The right of bishop Provoost to resign, and that of the 
convention to accept, have been already discussed. If the 
convention did accept, the resignation was complete. If 
there was a fact in this whole controversy, which I could 
have supposed would have been free from doubt or dispute, 
I should have thought it would have been this, that the con- 
vention did accept bishop Provoost's resignation. In this 
however, I find myself deceived, for it has been seriously 
argued that the convention instead of meaning to receive 
bishop Provoost's resignation, really meant to disapprove of 
and censure the measure. The convention, it is true, did 
not by formal resolution declare, in terms, that they accept" 
ed the resignation which was made. Nor do I know that 
thi3 was necessary, or that any precise form of words were 
required to signify their assent. If what was done amount- 
ed to an assent on the part of the convention, as much as if 



329 

it had been clearly and unequivocally expressed, the mere 
form in which it was done, must surely be immaterial. Acts, 
are often as strong indications of intention, as words; and if 
the proceedings of the convention which took place in con- 
sequence of bishop Provoost's resignation do not show that it 
was accepted by them and acted on accordingly, they are 
altogether irreconcileable with common sense. Let us for an 
instant turn to them. It will be seen that as soon as bishop 
Provoost had announced his resignation, that a committee 
was appointed " to consider and report what measures are 
necessary to be pursued in the present situation of thia 
church." The committee accordingly reported that, " The 
Fight rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D. having declared that he 
resigned his jurisdiction as bishop of the Protestant episco- 
pal church in this state, and having expressed his affection- 
ate wishes for the prosperity of the church in general, an$ 
the individual members of the convention, 

" Resolved that the convention return their thanks to the 
bishop for his kind wishes, and whilst they regret that he 
should have judged himself under the necessity of quitting so 
suddenly the exercise of the episcopal office, and thoso 
solemn and important dlities which are connected with it s 
they beg leave to assure him of their sincere and fervent 
prayers that Divine Providence may so guide and govern 
him in all his ways, as will most conduce both to his tempo- 
ral and eternal felicity. 

" Resolved, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted 
to bishop Provoost by the secretary of the convention." 

This preamble, and the resolutions " were unanimously 
adopted by the convention," and for my own part, I see no 
way of escaping from the conclusion which the bare perusal 
©f them makes, as strongly as any additional argument can 
do. The convention here expressly recognize bishop Pro- 
voost's resignation, express their regret that he found himself 
" under the necessity of quitting so suddenly the exercise of the 
episcopal office" and assure him of their fervent prayers for 
his temporal and eternal felicity. Bishop Provoost " ad- 
dressed the convention" when he resigned, and had " ex- 
pressed h|s affectionate wishes for the prosperity of the church 

V t 



330 

In general, and the individual members of the convention.- 7 
And in return for this farewell address on their solemn part- 
ing, the convention express their sorrow on the occasion, 
and " their sincere and fervent prayers" for his future happi- 
ness. The scene here closed between them, the affecting 
separation was past, and it would forever have remained un- 
disturbed, had not the unhallowed feet of an impertinent in- 
truder trod upon its ashes and vexed its repose. 

The convention having performed their duty towards 
bishop Provoost, show their further sense of what had taken 
place by resolving, at the same meeting,* that they would 
proceed to the election of a bishop, and that they could not 
" with propriety act upon the memorial from the corporation 
of Christ Church, while this church is destitute of a bishop.'* 
How this could be the case, or why the convention should 
have determined to proceed immediately to the choice of a 
bishop, if bishop Provoost had not resigned, and the con- 
vention had not accepted his resignation, I confess myself 
utterly at a loss to comprehend. But it is still urged, on the 
other side, that if the church was destitute of a bishop, they 
could not legally proceed to the choice of another, any more 
than they could act upon the memorial from Christ Church, 
and consequently, I suppose, that bishop Moore's election 
was a nullity. 

Colden. That knot our argument. We say that a bishop 
may decline acting, but cannot resign. A proposition in the 
convention to elect a suitable person to be consecrated as 
Bishop, and to have the charge of the church in this state, was 
negatived. A motion to elect a suitable person as bishop 
was then made and carried, but nothing is said about hig 
having the charge of the church. Hence the charge of the 
church must be supposed to be still i» bishop Provoost, though 
he had declined to act. Besides, if the church's being desti- 
tute of a bishop disqualified the convention from acting m 
one case, it must equally have done so in others. 

* See page 33, 



331 

Wells. I think I neither misunderstood nor mistated the 
argument of my learned friend; but I shall endeavour to an- 
swer it in the manner he has now presented it. I certainly 
will not stop to criticise upon the difference between declin- 
ing to act in an office, quitting the exercise of it, or resigning 
it. If, in these expressions, in the sense they are here used, 
there be aught of variance; if when weighed in the nicest 
scales of criticism, the one is found to differ from the other ; 
nay, if the very dust of the balance can alter the weight, the 
gentleman shall have the benefit of the difference : he may 
use it as he will. For my own part I shall consider them of 
equal import. The difference, however, of phraseology 
in the two resolutions alluded to respecting the election of .a 
bishop, may deserve a moment's notice* The first resolu- 
tion was negatived, and therefore, says the gentleman, the 
bishop elect was not to have the charge of the church. If 
this important meaning was intended to have been conveyed 
by the convention, it seems to me it would have been more 
.distinctly expressed, and that tliey would not have left us to 
grope for it in idle conjecture or fanciful distinctions ; and 
they would probably have explained other parts of their pro- 
ceedings which are utterly irreconeileable with this idea, 
I admit, however, that the first resolution was negatived, 
but not for the reason assigned by my friend, but simply be- 
cause in t'liat it was proposed to call a special convention, 
in the month of November, to choose a bishops whereas by 
the second one, which w r as adopted, they determined to pro- 
ceed to that choice the next day. As to the difference be- 
tween " bishop of the protestant episcopal church in this 
state," used in the last resolution, and " bishop to have the 
charge of the protestant episcopal church in the state of New- 
York," used in the first, it is another of those criticisms 
which I freely surrender the benefit of to any one that will 
take it. The convention, like myself, not being such deep 
philologists as my learned friend, I imagine, thought they 
amounted to the same thing, and used tliem accordingly 

* Seethe resolutions, page ,3SL 



332 

There is a marked difference too between the proceedings 
of the convention at which bishop Moore was elected, and 
those of the convention of 1811, at which bishop Hobartwas 
elected, which clearly shows the different stations they were 
intended to fill. In the latter case the convention acts dis- 
tinctly on the ground of choosing an assistant bishop. " Re- 
solved, that the convention will now proceed to the choice 
of a bishop, to assist bishop Moore in the duties of his epis- 
copal office, and to succeed him in case of survivorship," 
page 12 Jour. Sp. Con. of 1811. Whilst bishop Hobart was 
thus distinctly elected to assist bishoop Moore, he himself 
was chosen to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resig- 
nation of bishop Provoost : whereas, if he had not resigned, 
or the convention had not accepted his resignation, bishop 
Moore would have been chosen to assist him, as bishop Ho- 
bart was to assist bishop Moore. 

But among the marvellous discoveries which spring up in 
this cause with the rapidity of more than mushroom growth, 
is the one I was about to notice when I was last interrupted- 
It is this : that if the circumstance of the church's being des- 
titute of a bishop, disqualified the convention from acting in 
one case, the effect must be the same in every other. Is it 
then true that the convention can in no case act, when the 
church is destitute of a bishop ? If it is, I would ask by what 
authority was bishop Provoost himself elected ? Or what 
would have been the situation of the church, if, instead of 
resigning he had died. The church, in the first instance, 
certainly was without a bishop, as it would also have been 
again in the latter • and according to the argument of my 
friend, the convention could never have elected a bishop. 
But the church is not so imprudent; for although the bishop, 
where there is one, " shall preside in the convention ; yet 
in case of a vacancy, or necessary absence, the members shall 
elect a president from among the clergy."* The ordinary 
business of the convention, could therefore go on, even when 
there was no bishop, and in such a case they would, from ne- 
cessity, have the right to elect one. The memorial referred 

~* See 5th art. of Con. of Epis. church cfihis state. 



333 

to, was one that probably required the co-operation, or aid ot 
the bishop, and could not, therefore, with propriety, be acted 
upon until that vacancy was filled; but to draw from thence 
ihe general conclusion that it would be equally improper to 
transact any other business, would be to dissolve the conven- 
tion itself. 

We shall probably be told, however, that if the conven- 
tion even elected bishop Moore as diocesan, still as the house 
of bishops refused to consecrate him as such, but only a3 
coadjutor, he is entitled to no other character. I have already 
shewn that all that the house of bishops did, or could do indeed 
on this subject was, to express the opinion of its individual 
members. They had no right to enquire into, or to decide 
upon, the extent of the power of the person that was present- 
ed to them for consecration : all they were required to do, 
was to aid in conferring the spiritual character by consecra- 
tion, which is done in the same manner in the case of a dio- 
cesan, as of a coadjutor. The house of bishops could not 
therefore impose any condition or restriction, in the act of 
consecration, which would in the slightest degree interfere 
with the power of the state convention to confer and regulate 
the jurisdiction of bishops elected by them, to whom alone, 
as I have before shown, this right belongs. To allow this pow- 
er to the house of bishops, you must equally allow it to any 
three bishops of the church, who in the recess of the general 
convention may be called upon to perform the office of con- 
secration"; and it would, moreover, be imparting to them an 
important share in the elective rights of the convention 
which by the constitution of our church are exclusively 
given to them. # The house of bishops, however, did not 
on this occasion pretend to impose any such conditions or 
restrictions ; they contented themselves by a bare expression 
of their opinion in the manner already explained; but in the 
certificate of consecration they carefully abstain from touch- 
ing on the question, and seem studiously to refer to bishop 
Moore's election as deciding his character. They consecrate 
him into the office to which he was elected, cautiously and 
wisely leaving it with the convention to decide who was 
their diocesan if there should ever be a question aboufc it. 
* See art. 4. Con. Epis. ck, p. 32% 



334. 

They certify that they did " rightly and canonicaliy conse- 
crate our beloved in Christ, Benjamin Moore, D. D. rector 
of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York, of whose suffi- 
ciency in good learning, soundness in the faith, and purity of 
manners we are fully ascertained, into the office of bishop of 
the Protestant episcopal church in the state of New-York ; 
to which the said Benjamin Moore, D. D. hath been elected 
hy the convention of the said state, in consequence of the 
inability of the right rev. bishop Provoost, and of his declin- 
ing all episcopal jurisdiction within the said state."* Now 
what are the qualifications into which the consecrating 
bishops consider themselves bound to enquire and to decide 
on ? Evidently the sufficiency of learning, soundness in the 
faith, and purity of manners of the candidate presented to 
them ; these, the sanctity of their own characters, and the 
obligations of conscience required them to examine into, un- 
til they " had fully ascertained that the candidate possessed 
them." But here their enquiries ended, because their only ob- 
ject was the qualification of the candidate for the spiritual 
character he was about to assume. Again, into what office 
did they consecrate bishop Moore : into the office to which 
he had been elected by the convention of this state. What was 
that ? If I have not before shown that it was that of dioce- 
san, it would be vain in me to make any farther attempt for 
that purpose. Why was he so elected ? because bishop Pro- 
voost, had declined all episcopal jurisdiction within this state*, 
in other words, he had resigned to the convention, who had 
thereupon chosen bishop Moore in his place. The result of 
this is ; that bishop Moore was actually consecrated in strict 
conformity to the character conferred on him by his election- 
Look at the difference between these letters of consecra- 
tion, and those of bishop Hobart. In the latter, the conse- 
crating bishops, after stating that they have " fully ascer- 
tained," that he possessed the qualifications already men- 
tioned, declare that they have consecrated him " into the 
office of bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the 
state of New-York, to which he hath been elected by the 

* See the Certificate, page 42c 



335 

convention of the said state, to assist the bishops of the 
church in said state, in the duties of the episcopal office, 
and to succeed in case of survivorship.''* 

Judge Thompson. By bishop Hobart's certificate of con- 
secration, as printed, it appears that he was consecrated to 
assist the bishops in the state of New-York. Is this correctly 
printed ? 

Emmet. It is. The consecration is to assist the bishops; 
and bishop Provoost joins in the same letters of consecration, 
and in them is called bishop of the protcstant episcopal church 
in the state of New-York. 

Wells. I intended to notice the circumstance mentioned 
by his honour, judge Thompson, as well as that to which my 
learned friend has just directed the attention of the court. 
He may trust me that I shall not shrink from any part of 
this controversy. Shielded as the cause is, which I support, 
with the panoply of truth, of justice, and religion herself, I 
feel that is invulnerable : that it is so thoroughly armed at 
all points, that even its very heel is guarded against the 
steels of its adversaries. 

I was proceeding to point out the difference between the 
letters of consecration of bishop Moore and bishop Hobart, 
and to show that their characters are as distinctly marked in 
these letters, as they were by the convention in their res- 
pective elections. In the case of bishop Moore, he was 
elected diocesan, and he was consecrated into the office to 
which he had been elected. In that of bishop Hobart, he 
was elected an assistant bishop, and as such he was conse- 
crated. It is true, the word bishop is used, but yet the of- 
fice to which he was elected by the convention, is expressly 
mentioned as the one into which they had consecrated him: 
this must, therefore, be the controlling description, and 
whatever is inconsistent with it, would, according to the 
well settled rules of legal construction, be rejected as sur- 

See the Letters of Consecration, p. 43. 



336 

plasage. But there is no necessity of resorting to this tech- 
nical rule of interpretation, for the insertion of the word 
bishops was probably at the instance of bishop White 
and bishop Jarvis, who had concurred in the opinion ex- 
pressed at Trenton, and which has already been considered. 
They, perhaps, thought that self-consistency required the 
use of the word bishops, rather than bishop, especially as it 
could not affect, in any degree, the validity of the instru- 
ment itself, in which they pointedly declare, that they have 
consecrated bishop Hobaft into the same office to which the 
convention had elected him, and when it is most manifest that 
they elected him to assist bishop Moore. 

I will now consider the effect of bishop Provoost's being a 
party to the letters of consecration of bishop Hobart, and of 
the title by which he is described in them. So far as res- 
pects bishop Provoost himself, no just argument could be 
drawn from these circumstances, in favour of the diocesan 
pretensions which were afterwards set up by him; for he had 
not then himself discovered, that, notwithstanding his resig- 
nation, he was still diocesan. He made this discovery by 
the perusal of Mr. Ireland's pamphlet, which was not then 
published.* I could wish that he had got his information 
from a purer source ! He did not, therefore, on that occa- 
sion, pretend to act in the character of diocesan, but merely 
in his spiritual character of bishop, which has been admitted 
to be indelible, to aid in performing an office wholly spiri- 
tual. This he could do consistently with that character, ac- 
cording to my argument on that part of the cause. The 
passage I before read from Bingham, is peculiarly applicable 
to this view of the subject. A bishop who had renounced 
or resigned, could not afterwards " intermeddle with the af- 
fairs of the church, to ordain or perform any offices of the like 
nature, unless he was called to assist by some other bishops /' 
" yet he was allowed the title, and honour, and communion of 
a bishop.'' 1 

Thus it appears, that though after resignation by a bishop, 
all powers which relate to jurisdiction are at an end, yet tha4 

** See Mr. Moore's testimony, p. 158, 



337 

in certain spiritual offices he may still take a part, when 
properly called to assist: and that his honour, his title, and 
liis communion as a bishop, are at all times allowed to him. 

Now, at whose instance, or in what manner did it hap- 
pen, that bishop Provoost did assist in the consecration of 
bishop Hobart? Was it a spontaneous exercise of power or 
duty? No. He consented to attend and take a part in the 
consecration, at the express request of bishop White, on a per- 
sonal application made to him for that purpose. In proof of 
this, I refer to bishop Hobart's Statement, page 9, in a note. 
Thi3 then sufficiently accounts both for bishop Provoost's act- 
ing in the consecration, and also for the title which on that 
occasion, and probably on some others, was annexed to his 
name in the certificate. And I doubt whether these circum- 
stances will ever again be marshalled among the proofs of 
bishop Provoost's being the diocesan. 

The last of the pretensions that have been set up by the 
aeal of imprudent friends for this gentleman's still retaining 
his diocesan rank, for, as I wish to speak of him with be- 
coming respect, I cannot but think that many of those 
which have been urged, would be disclaimed by himself, ig 
the one which I shall now notice. It is the conversation 
that is said to have taken place at Trenton, respecting the 
consecration of bishop Moore. Mr. Ireland is the witness 
upon this occasion.* He relates, quite in detail, what, he 
says, passed at an interview between the house of bishops 
and the New-York delegation, relative to bishop Provoost's 
resignation, and the consecration of Dr. Moore; and which, 
he says, was communicated to him on his arrival at Tren- 
ton. The only use, it appears to me, to which this testi- 
mony can be applied, will be to prove, that Dr. Moore knew 
the opinion of the house of bishops, to which I have so of- 
ten been obliged to refer, before his consecration, and that 
he, therefore, entered upon his office with notice of bishop 
Provoost's diocesan rights, or rather of what the house of 
bishops thought of them. If this opinion, however, could 
in no wise affect Dr. Moore's future rights, and was 5 besife, 

* Sec Mr, Ireland's testimony, p. 125, 

- vn 



So8 

in Itself incorrect, both of which, I trust, I hare shown to 
he the case, then I do not very well perceive how the com- 
munication of it to Dr. Moore was to give to it either autho- 
rity or weight. If the story, therefore, told by Mr. Ireland 
were ever so true, it seems to me to be wholly immaterial* 
I cannot refrain, however, from remarking*, that it rests en- 
tirely upon the testimony of this gentleman, whom I cer- 
tainly do not wish to treat with unnecessary harshness, be- 
cause, it is not in my nature to triumph over the fallen, even 
where they have been the authors of their own ruin. But, 
considering the figure this gentleman has been pleased to 
make as a witness, and the still more prominent station he 
has occupied, as a writer of one of the pamphlets which owe 
their birth to this controversy, I feel myself compelled to 
remind the court, that he appears before them in the charac- 
ter of a degraded clergyman; one certainly not calculated to 
excite any prepossessions in his favour. Nor would these be 
increased by an inspection of the pamphlet of which he is 
the author; for it is not less disgraceful to him as a christian, 
than it is dishonourable to him as a gentleman. "Whether 
these are the claims which fastened themselves upon the fer- 
vid fancy of the counsel who opened this cause, when he 
burst forth into the eulogium which he pronounced upon the 
character of this favourite witness, when he ushered him 
into the presence of the court, I know not : I sincerely hope 
there were others with which I am not acquainted. 

The rev. Mr. Wilkins, with whose name is at once pre- 
sented to the mind a model of all that learning, piety, and 
purity which should ever distinguish his order, was present 
at the same interview with the house of bishops, of which 
Mr. Ireland speaks, and he has no other recollection of what 
passed, than bishop White's expressing some " doubt or dif- 
ficulty about a bishop's resigning."* It is possible, therefore, 
that in regard to this whole business, Mr. Ireland's imagina- 
tion may have insensibly usurped the place of his recollec- 
tion. Among other things, he declares, he never had a doubt 
from that time, but that bishop Provoost continued to be tlie dia- 

* See Mr. Wilkins *s testimony, p. 241. 



339 

cesak Now, it is a little remarkable, that this very gentle^ 
man was presented to bishop Moore as the diocesan; was tried 
by a tribunal appointed by him, and the sentence of degra- 
dation was pronounced by him; and yet in the whole course 
of those proceedings, not the lisp of an objection escapes 
from this gentleman's lips to bishop Moore's diocesan autho- 
rity. He acquiesced in its exercise, in silent submission,, 
at the very moment when it sealed his own disgrace; but so 
much stronger is his sense of injustice towards his friend Mr., 
Jones, than what he felt for his own wrongs, that for him he 
unlocks his bosom, which had hitherto concealed the secret, 
and generously furnishes him with the means of defying the 
discipline of his church, that he had not deigned to use him- 
self, by informing him that bishop Moore was not the dioce- 
san, and therefore had no jurisdiction in his case. 

Dismissing any farther notice of the conversations which 
are supposed to have taken place at Trenton, as entirely un- 
important, for they could not alter the real nature of bishop 
Moore's character or authority, I proceed to the last consi- 
deration which I intend to lay before the court on the subject 
of diocesan. As it was the convention of this state by 
whom bishop Provoost and bishop Moore were elected, and 
who were to determine when the power conferred by them 
had ceased, whether by resignation or any other cause; to 
them must also necessarily belong the right to decide on the 
rank of those who derive their power from them. The ques- 
tion of diocesan has accordingly been put at rest, by the 
solemn decision of the convention upon it. At their meeting 
in October, 1812, bishop Provoost addressed a letter to 
them, in the character of diocesan, in which he informs 
them, that he is ready to act in conformity to the opinion 
expressed by the house of bishops, and to " concur in any 
regulation which expediency may dictate to the church." 
The convention, upon this, entered into a full discussion of 
the subject, thus brought before them, and passed certain 
resolutions, which I beg leave to refer to at length,* as I 



* See Journals of Con. of Prot, Epis, Church of this stale^ 



p. 50. 



340 

mean only to read the concluding part of them, which is in 
these words: " And this convention, in their own names, 
and for the protestant episcopal church in this state, do 
liereby solemnly declare and acknowledge the said Benjamin 
Moore, and no other person, to be their true and lawful dio- 
cesan bishop; and that respect and obedience ought of right 
to be paid to him as such." 

Here then is the deliberate judgment of the tribunal who 
alone were competent to decide this question, expressed 
with a certainty and precision that puts all doubt and cavil 
to flight; and with an unanimity honourable to the church. 
On this decision alone, even without an examination of the 
grounds on which it rested, I might safely have relied. I 
might have contented myself with taking up the journals of 
the convention, and reading from them the proceedings re- 
ferred to, and have confidently asked this court, whether 
they were prepared to force upon the episcopal church of 
this state, as their diocesan, one whom the ecclesiastical 
authority of that church had solemnly disclaimed as such ? 
But as I did not choose to leave bishop Moore's diocesan 
yights upon the mere de facto exercise of them, so neither 
did I think it proper to put the claims, that have been 
urged in behalf of bishop Provoost, upon the mere decision 
of the convention* I have, therefore, superadded to both, 
the argument I have thus far delivered, for the purpose of 
convincing the court, not only that I do not rely on the 
mere naked maxim itajax est, but that in the reason, and na- 
ture, and fitness of things it could not possibly be otherwise. 

The second question, arising under the head of jurisdic- 
tion, which I propose to discuss, is this; whether bishop 
Moore, even if he was not the diocesan, but only the coadju- 
tor bishop, had not equally jurisdiction of Mr. Jones's case ? 

Allowing then, for the purpose of the argument I intend 
now to urge, that bishop Moore was merely a coadjutor 
bishop, I proceed to show, that in that capacity he had pre- 
cisely the same cognizance of the case we are examining, as 
if he had been the diocesan. That he was either the one 
or the other has not hitherto been disputed. I give Mr. 
Jones and his advocates the choice of the character in which 



341 

bishop Moore shall be considered. If he was either, it is 
enough for me ; if he was either, I shall prove Mr. Jones to 
be in deep rebellion against the very authority of his church, 
to which, before God and man, he in the most solemn man- 
ner promised obedience. I shall prove this in two ways. 
First, from the opinion of the house of bishops, which has 
been so much relied on by the other side; and secondly* 
from the intrinsic power and duties of a coadjutor bishop. 

The house of bishops, after stating that they could not re- 
cognize bishop Provoost's resignation as a valid or effectual 
act, do, nevertheless, declare their readiness to consecrate 
to the office of bishop of the church in this state, any per- 
son who shall be presented to them with the requisite testi- 
monials. " But," they add, u this house must be understood 
to be explicit in their declaration, that they shall consider 
such a person as assistant or coadjutor bishop, during bishop 
Provoost's life, although competent in point of character, to 
all the episcopal duties; the extent in which the same shall 
be discharged by him, to be dependent on such regulations 
as expediency may dictate to the church in New-York* 
grounded on the indisposition of bishop Provoost, and with 
his concurrence." Bishop Moore was then coadjutor bishop, 
and as such, competent to perform all the episcopal duties ; sub- 
ject, however, as to the extent to which he should discharge 
them, to any regulation prescribed by the church with bishop 
Provoost's concurrence. Now, if the convention, with the* 
concurrence of bishop Provoost, had directed that bishop 
Moore should exercise the episcopal duties to their utmost 
extent, that is, that he should exercise all of them, there 
could be no question about his right to have done so accord- 
ing to this opinion. I shall therefore show, that the conven- 
tion did regulate, and that bishop Provoost did concur. The 
convention, immediately before the election of bishop Moore, 
declared that the church was " destitute of a bishop." They 
had no one then who could perform any of the episcopal du- 
ties: all were suspended. In order, however, that the ex- 
ercise of these duties might be resumed, they elected bishop 
Moore. Bishop Provoost had before exercised those duties, 
but he had resigned them, or if the gentlemen prefer the 



3*2 

phrase, he had declined to act. Bishop Moore was obviously 
chosen to do what bishop Provoost had declined doing. 
What was this ? To exercise any longer his jurisdiction or 
episcopal duties. The whole was resigned or declined by 
him, and the whole was transferred to and was of course to 
be exercised by bishop Moore, who was elected to fill his 
place. Thus the convention did, in fact, regulate the ex- 
tent to which bishop Moore should exercise the episcopal 
duties in this diocese, and have plainly declared it to be 
their intention, that they should all be discharged by him. 

The concurrence of bishop Provoost in this regulation, is 
equally manifested, as well by his resignation, as his subse= 
quent acquiescence in the extent to which bishop Moore did 
discharge the episcopal duties. That he discharged the 
whole is not disputed. Can there be stronger evidence of 
Ms concurrence in the acts of bishop Moore, on the part of 
bishop Provoost, than that he, himself, had declined to per- 
form them^ that with his knowledge the convention had ex- 
onerated him from doing so, and had appointed another to fill 
Ms station, who for years had been in the continued perform- 
ance of those very duties which he had requested to be re- 
lieved from? What did bishop Provoost ask the convention 
to do? To take back his episcopal jurisdiction, and of 
course give it to another. They did both with his know- 
ledge, and he therefore gave to the regulations of the con- 
vention on this subject, his full concurrence. 

This acquiescence, though on the part of bishop Provoost, 
I shall be told, was while he was ignorant of his real situa- 
tion, and when he supposed that he was actually divested of 
all diocesan power. If he had read the journals of the con- 
vention of his church, with as much attention as he appears 
afterwards to have read Mr. Ireland's scurrilous pamphlet, he 
would have been earlier and better instructed in what he 
seems to have since then considered his duty. Why he did 
not do so, I leave for those to explain who make this neglect 
an apology for his conduct. Insufficient however as this ex- 
cuse is, for every man is bound to know what belongs to his 
official station, I shall show that bishop Provoost was awaken= 
ed from the ignorance or misapprehension under which he 



343 

had for years laboured, in time to have arrested the proceed- 
ings against Mr. Jones, if the right to do so belonged to 
him. He had sufficient notice of the measures which were 
about to be taken against this unotfending victim, as he is 
termed, to have rescued him from the persecutions of his 
enemies, as the tender hearted apologists of schism are 
pleased to call the wholesome discipline of the church. 

Dr. Richard C. Moore, in his testimony, or more properly 
speaking, in the address which he has strangely made a part 
of it,* informs us, that on receiving his summons to attend 
as one of the presbyters, before the bishop, for the trial of 
Mr. Jones, he made bishop Provoost acquainted with it, 
" When I received " says he, " the letter enjoining my at- 
tendance at this time, I waited upon bishop Provoost, and 
requested him to inform me whether his concurrence to the 
measure had been obtained. He assured me, without any hesi- 
tation, that he had never been consulted, consequently, that 
he could not have concurred." Mr. Jones too, in his Sys- 
tem of Intolerance, p. 53, 54, states, that he gave notice to 
bishop Provoost, of the proceedings that had been instituted 
against him, and called upon him as his " rightful and ac- 
knowledged diocesan," to give him the necessary directions 
for the regulation of his conduct. To this, bishop Provoost 
replied, that he considered any interference of his in the affair 
would be premature. Thus were two opportunities afforded 
to bishop Provoost for the assertion of his diocesan control 
over bishop Moore, if he really possessed it. But instead of 
taking a single step for this purpose, he sits with folded arm 3, 
a calm spectator of proceedings, which he is afterwards 
pleased to say, were " totally unauthorized by the constitu- 
tion and canons of the church."f If he thought so, why 
did he not prevent them ? Why did he wait till his coadju- 
tor bishop, if he considered him such, together with his pres- 
byters, over whom it was his duty to watch, and warn them 
from falling into error, had involved themselves in the guilt 
of violating, not only the laws of the church, but, to use 

* See Dr. Moore's testimony, p. 168. 
f See System of Intolerance, p. 71. 



3*4 

bis own words, even " the principles of our religion" itself: 
I know not how to reconcile this opinion of bishop Provoost 
with his conduct, without supposing, as I am bound to do, 
that there is some mistake about it. The expressions, just 
mentioned, must have been extorted from him, under a 
strong irritation of his feelings, excited by the partial and 
discoloured statements of those, who could only hope to gain 
his favour by deception : they could not have been the result 
of his deliberate examination and reflection. The inference, 
on the contrary, which is to be fairly drawn from his permit- 
ting those proceedings to go into effect, without even ex- 
pressing his disapprobation of them, or even a doubt about 
their correctness, is, that he did virtually concur in the 
course that was pursued, however much he might have been 
made dissatisfied with its result, by artful misrepresentations 
or insidious appeals to his feelings. 

This conclusion is strengthened by the letter of bishop 
White to Mr. Jones, before referred to. " Since then," says 
he, " the bishop [Provoost] had declared to the convention 
his design, grounded on indisposition, of not performing any 
of the [episcopal] duties ; I think, that bishop Moore's per- 
formance of them has been authorized by that declaration; 
and will continue to be so, until the exercise of jurisdiction 
shall be resumed by bishop Provoost, under the same solem- 
nity with which it was formerly declined ; that is, by a com- 
munication to the convention." Bishop Provoost acted, and 
no doubt, intentionally, in conformity to this opinion, and 
thought, as he was correct in doing, that if he was even the 
diocesan, still, that having relinquished the right to act as 
such, he could not resume his authority until he had made 
a communication to the invention for that purpose : and that 
consequently all bishop Moore's acts in the mean time were 
valid. 

Bishop Provoost took no step whatever towards a resump- 
tion of his diocesan authority, until he made the communi- 
cation to the convention, which has been already noticed* 
And even in that, he goes no farther than to offer his con- 
currence " in any regulations which expediency may dictate 
to the church." Until this period t^en, whatever had been 



34£> 

performed under the authority and directions of bishop Moom, 
was effectually done, and that no alteration then took place 
in his character, and the nature and extent of his jurisdiction, 
has been already shown. 

But again, according to the opinion of the house of bishops, 
bishop Moore was competent to all the episcopal duties : the 
extent, however, to which he was to discharge them, might 
he limited or regulated by the convention, with bishop Pro- 
voost's concurrence. Now, suppose the convention made 
no regulations on the subject. Then how would the matter 
stand ? Bishop Moore was competent to all the duties, but 
the convention might, with bishop Provoost' s concurrence, re- 
strain him to the performance of only certain specified parts. 
As he was competent to all, however, he might exercise all 
fill this restraint was imposed. If it never was imposed, 
then his competency to perform all continued. Unless too, 
the convention did regulate, there was nothing in which the 
concurrence of bishop Provoost could be required. It is ap- 
parent, therefore, that if the convention made no regulations* 
no concurrence could of course be necessary, and bishop 
Moore would consequently remain in the full exercise of all 
the episcopal duties. 

If too, it was intended, both by bishop Provoost and the 
convention, that bishop Moore should take upon himself all 
the episcopal functions, which has been shown was the casfe 
T>y the resignation of the former, and the election of the lat- 
ter, to what purpose was it necessary for the convention to 
make any further regulations on the subject? What, in shorts 
was left for them to regulate ? After bishop Provoost had, by 
his resignation, declared his wish to be relieved, not from a 
part, but from the whole, of his episcopal duties, and the con- 
vention had granted his request, by appointing another who 
was capable of performing the whole, and who accordingly 
did so, would it not have been idle to ask bishop Provoost's 
concurrence in the very arrangement which he had himself 
desired, and which had been made at his request ? If on the 
contrary, bishop Provoost was only to have been relieved 
from a portion of his duty, then, inasmuch, as he might pre-* 
jO&r one part to another, there would be a propriety in asldng 

w w 



3*6 

Bis cGiiemreivee in any plan the convention might wish to 
adopt, in order to apportion between them their respective* 
duties; but when all were renounced by one, and assumed 
by the other, that propriety could no longer exist ; so that 
if the convention were to regulate, and bishop Provoost to 
concur, both were done. If they, however, did not regulate, 
and bishop Provoost did not concur, it was because both were 
unnecessary. 

I now proceed to show that, independent of the opinion 
of the house of bishops, the coadjutor bishop, from the intrin- 
sic nature of his office, has a right to perform every episcopal 
act, whatever : that whilst he is Coadjutor he is vested with' 
the whole diocesan authority. 

There is a material distinction between a suffragan and a 
Coadjutor bishop; the one acts under special and limited 
power imparted to him, from time to time by his diocesan, 
whilst the other has the full power of the diocesan himself. 
The suffragan stands in the place of the ancient chorepiscopus, 
who was appointed by the diocesan bishop who always re- 
sided in a city, to perform special episcopal acts in the vil- 
lages and country within his diocese. " And hence, say? 
Bingham, it appears that as their power was precarious, and 
depending upon the will of councils and city bishops, from 
whom they received it; so by this time, [A. D. 439] their au- 
thority began to sink apace in the church." Bing. ch. Ant. 
book 2d, chap. xiv. sec. 11. As early as the year of our Lord 
360, it was decreed by the council of Laodicea, that such 
bishops " should do nothing without the consent and direc- 
tion of the city bishop." This order, in consequence of their 
limited powers, went gradually into decay, and in the ninth 
century became extinct. Same book, and chap. sec. 12. In 
England, after the reformation, there was an attempt made 
to restore the chorepiscopi under the name of suffragan bishops^ 
and an act of Parliament for their regulation was passed iu 
She 26th year of the reign of Henry VIII. A. D. 1534. 
Bur. His. Ref. vol. 2, page 157. But they have there also, 
fallen into disuse, as their predecessors did in the ancient 
church,- owing, probably, to the same cause. Bingham. 
leaking of the suffragans, says, that " none of them were 



34? 

sillier to have or act any thing properly episcopal, without 
the consent, or permission of the bishop of the city in whose 
diocese he was placed and constituted. Now any one that 
compares this with the account I have given of the ancient 
chorcpiscopi, will easily perceive that these suffragans were 
much of the same nature with them." Same book and chap, 
sec. 13. 

Bishop Gibson, in treating of suffragan bishops gives the 
act I have just referred to, at full length, in which it is express- 
ly declared, that suffragans shall have "only such profits, juris- 
dictions, power and authority, as shall be licensed and limited 
to them to take, do and execute, by any archbishop, or bishop 
of this realm, within their diocese to whom they shall be suf- 
fragans, by their commission under their seals/' Of the situ- 
ation of this order of the clergy, before the act already men- 
tioned, he says, in one of his notes, or commentaries, upon it.. 
*' there can be no dpubt, but the persons received to be suf- 
fragan bishops in England, before the making of this act, 
were confined to the exercise of such power cnly, $s they liad 
commission for from time to time ;" and, therefore, that the apt 
*' was only a continuance of them in their former stated' 

It is evident from this review of the history of suffragan 
bishops, that they have in all ages of the church, been an in- 
ferior and subordinate order of bishops, acting under and in 
conformity to the orders or directions of their diocesans, ex- 
pressed in their commissions under their seals ; of course, no 
episcopal act, performed by them, was valid without the con- 
currence of the diocesan thus previously given. In the case, 
however, of a coadjutor bishop, no such concurrence, as I 
shall presently show, was necessary ; and much of the mis* 
apprehension that has taken place on this subject, has arisen 
from confounding these two characters together, which are 
entirely distinct. 

For the purpose of preventing schism, and preserving the 
peace and unity of the church, the ancient rule was, " that 
in one city, there should be but one bishop, though it was 
large enough to admit of many presbyters." Yet to this rule 
as to every other, of a like kind, exceptions would naturally 
grise out of human exigencies. Accordingly " when it man- 



S4S 

ifestly appeared that the allowing of two bishops in one city. 
In some certain circumstances, and critical junctures, was the 
only way to put an end to some long and inveterate schism ; 
in that case there were some catholick bishops, who were 
willing to take a partner into their throne, and share the epis= 
copal power and dignity between them. Thus Melelius, bi= 
shop of Antioch, made the proposal to Paulinus his antago- 
nist, who, though he was of the same faith, yet kept up a 
church divided in communion from him. I shall relate the 
proposal in the words of Theodoret, Melctius > says he, the 
meekest of men, thus friendly and mildly addressed himself 
to Paulinus: Forasmuch as the Lord hath committed to me 
the care of these sheep, and thou hast received the care of 
others, and all the sheep agree in one common faith, let us 
join our flocks, my friend, and dispute no longer about prima- 
cy and government : but let us feed the sjieep in common, 
and bestow a corammon care upon them. And if it be the 
throne that creates the dispute, I will try to take away this 
cause also. We will lay the holy gospel upon the seat, and 
then each of us take his place on either side of it. And if I 
die first, you shall take the government of the flock alone: 
but if it be your fate to die before me, then I will feed them 
according to my power. Thus spake the divine Meletius^ 
says our author, livingly and meekly ; but Paulinus would not 
acquiesce, nor hearken to him." Bingo Antiq. ch. ch. Book 
2. chap. xiii. sec. 1 and 2, 

This was the origin cf coadjutor bishops, and in the elo- 
quent and pious appeal of Meletius to his intended coadjutor, 
we see that they come to be partners of the same throne, and 
equal sharers in ike episcopal power and dignity : their joint 
flock was to be the object of their common care. Thus mani- 
festly showing th eir equality of power and authority, which 
is also most aptly expressed by the term colleagues, applied 
to them by some of the fathers. Same book and ch. sec. 4. 

Another exception to the rule requiring that there should 
be but one bishop in one city, arose from the inability of the 
city bishop or dioce?an, to perform his duties, from old age 
or infirmity, in which cases he might take to himself a col- 
league or coadjutor, who was not however subordinate to him 



349 

111 any other sense, than that during his life, unless indeed 
lie resigned, he could not become the sole or exclusive dio- 
cesan, but only in case of his survivorship. A number of 
Instances of this kind are mentioned by Bingham in the sec- 
tion last referred to. 

The same doctrine is distinctly laid down by bishop Gibson 
in his codex already mentioned. " It was, says he, an an- 
eient custom in the church, that when a bishop grew very 
aged, or otherwise unlit to discharge the episcopal office ; a 
coadjutor was taken by him, or given to him ; at first, in order 
to succeed him ; but in late times only to be an assistant dur- 
ing life : in such manner, however, that being ordained bi- 
shop, the whole care was vested in him." Gibson's Cod. 
Jur. Ecc. Aug. 1 vol. page 158. 

The expression whole fare here used, is of the largest and 
most comprehensive kind, for it embraces all the power 
and authority of every sort that can be exercised by the 
person to whom it is confided. The whole care of the par* 
ish belongs to the rector who is settled in it, that is all 
the rights and duties of rector belong to him. So the whole 
care of a diocese is the complete investiture of the person to 
whom it is given, with the entire diocesan jurisdiction. 

An authority however, has been read by one of our learn- 
ed opponents from Mr. Hargrave's notes on Coke Littleton, 
(note 3. folio 94. a) to show that the office of the suffragan, 
was to perform the spiritual offices of the diocesan, and that 
of the coadjutor was to superintend his temporalities or jurist 
diction. But the authority referred to, establishes no such doc- 
trine ; on the contrary it is but a repetition and confirmation of 
that which I have just been advancing on this subject. " Suf- 
fragan bishops, says Mr. Hargrave, resemble the ckorcpiscopi> 
or bislwps of (he country, in the early times of the christian 
church." What they were I have already shown; " They 
should not, he adds, be confounded with the coadjutors, of 
a bishop ; the latter being appointed in case of the bishop's in- 
if niity, to superintend his jurisdiction and temporalities ; nei- 
ther of which was within the interference of the former." 
Now is it not plain that the difference here pointed out be- 
tween the suffragan and the coadjutor bishop, .is precisely what' 



I have been eadeavouring to prove it mas ? The suffrage 
could not interfere with the jurisdiction or temporalities of the 
diocesan: that is, he had no power of his own to do any act, he 
could never interfere, or come in collision with his diocesan, 
because he could merely exercise the specific power which at 
any time his diocesan had delegated to him, when he became 
functus officio : all that he might attempt beyond that would 
he an absolute nullity. Not so, however, with the coadjutor? 
for to him the interference with the jurisdiction and temporali- 
ties, which words comprehend the whole diocesan power, both 
spiritual and temporal, was given ; for he it was., who was to 
superintend, that is, to manage and direct the whole of both. 
Mr. Hargrave too refers, himself,to the very part of bishop Gib- 
son which I have quoted, as his authority ^and therefore if there 
is any contradiction between them, bishop Gibson must pre- 
vail. But there is not ; they are perfectly consistent, and 
strengthen each other. 

Tomake " assurance doubly sure*' on this point, Iwould refer 
the court to another of the same gentleman's own authorities. 
I allude to the case of Narefcsus, which he read from Potter 
on church government, page 465, to show that " in places 
where the people had a share in electing their bishops their 
election was void, unless it was approved, not only by their 
clergy, but by the neighbouring bishops." And the argu- 
ment, I suppose, that is to be drawn from thence is, that in- 
asmuch as the people, with us, have a share in electing 
liishops, our convention being formed per clerum el populum, 
no election of bishop can be good until the neighbouring 
.bjshops, that is the house of bishops, have approved of it; and 
that bis'liop Moore's election, as diocesan, is consequently void ? , 
because in that character they refused to recognize him and 
approve of his election. As I -forgot to, notice this authority, 
when I was on the part of this cause to which it will be ap- 
plied, I will ask the indulgence of a single remark upon it 
here. The author is speaking of the elections of bishops, 
and the control, which at different times had been estab- 
lished over them, where they were popular, least improper 
persons might have been exalted to that high office. This 
control was, in soqie instances, vested in the neighbouring 



351* 

jiishops, and in otlfers, according to express canons, in u the 
metropolitan and the majority of the corn-provincial bishops, ' 
page 467. These regulations, however, arose out of the pe^ 
culiar circumstances of the times, and ceased with them, for 
they certainly do not now exist in the church in England, 
according to which that in this country is fashioned ; and if 
they even did, as they would owe their force to being enacted 
by the proper ecclesiastical authority, to apply them to this 
country, it must be shown that they have been here ordained 
in the same way. Until, then, the house of bishops are in-^ 
vested with this metropolitan or controlling power over the 
election of bishops by the state convention, they can have no 
possible right to use it. 

I return to the purpose for which I referred to the case of 
Narcissus, which was to show, that my learned friend's dis- 
tinction between suffragan and coadjutor bishops is entirely 
unfounded, and exists only in his own fancy. " For, says- 
Potter, when Narcissus bishop of Jerusalem, withdrew him- 
self from his diocese, we are told, that the bishops of the 
neighbouring cities agreed to ordain Dins in his stead. Some 
time after this, Narcissus returned from the wilderness, where 
he had concealed himself, and was reinstated in his bishop- 
rick by the consent of all parties ; but he becoming, through 
his great age, wholly unfit to execute his episcopal office, the 
christians of Jerusalem prevailed upon Alexander, bishop of 
Capadocia, to undertake the care of their church, as the coad- 
jutor of Narcissus, during his lite, and afterwards to be their 
sole bishop," page 465. Now as Narcissus was wholly unfit 
to exercise his episcopal office, it follows, that he could neither 
perform its spiritual duties, nor manage its temporal concerns, 
and consequently, if the gentleman's doctrine be correct, the 
christians of Jerusalem ought to have got two bishops instead 
of one : a suffragan to have discharged the spiritual part of 
Narcissus's office, and a coadjutor to have superintended his 
temporalities. And yet they were content with one, who 
alone took upon himself the entire care of their church, for Nat*- 
dssus was wholly unfit to execute any part of the episcopal 
oifrce. 



Thus, I liope, I have made it appear, that whilst the suf- 
fragan bishop could only act under the commission given to 
him, as occasion required, by his diocesan, the coadjutor was 
equal to the diocesan, and shared his authority when both 
acted together ; but where the diocesan, by age or infirmity, 
became unable to act, or declined to do so, the coadjutor had, 
then, the whole care vested in him, and consequently succeed- 
ed to the whole episcopal jurisdiction. 

The consequence of this reasoning is, that whether bishop 
Moore was diocesan, or coadjutor bishop, is a matter of per- 
feet indifference ; for in either case the whole care, or episco- 
pal jurisdiction, of this diocese, was vested in and exercised 
by him, and of course his taking cognizance of Mr. Jones's 
case was fully within his jurisdiction. 

But if, unfortunately, any doubts that I have not been able 
to dispel, should still hang over this subject, I think I have? 
a right to ask, whether e /ery construction is not to be made 
in favour of bishop Moore's diocesan authority ? It has been 
peacefully and usefully exercised for years, and has, for the 
first time, been called in question by the lynx eyed vigilance 
of those who have penetrated every recess of subtilty and 
sophistry to find out objections to the validity of proceedings, 
where justice is only equalled, by the persevering effrontery 
with which they have been resisted. Can any one look 
calmly at the consequences of the doctrine which is urged 
against us? Bishop Moore could do nothing, say our adver- 
saries, but with the concurrence of bishop Provoost, and he 
has concurred in nothing ; therefore every thing that has been 
done by bishop Moore is a nullity. Every consecration by 
which he has dedicated a church to the service of God; eve- 
ry confirmation by which he has enabled the believer to as- 
sume upon himself his baptismal vows; every ordination by 
which he has increased the ministers of Christ, are to be- 
come but mere solemn mockeries : every act of the conven 
fion, over which he has presided, in short, every act that he 
has performed through the whole course of his diocesan minis- 
tration is to crumble into dust. When an arm of such pow- 
erful menace is raised against the peace, the order and secu= 
niy of the church, it is enough to excite the alarms, and a*!- 



35$ 

most appal the hearts of those who take an interest in he? 
fate. But I do believe they may lull their fears to rest, for I 
do trust in God that I behold before me the redeeming spirit 
that shall arrest this uplifted arm, avert the parricidal blow, 
and wither the energies by which it would be directed. 

The third question I shall make under the head of juris- 
diction, is, whether a case existed between Trinity Church 
and Mr. Jones to which the 32d canon applied ?* 

The application which is to be made to the bishop under 
this canon is, " in cases of controversy" between ministers or 
assistant ministers, and the vestry or congregation to which, 
they belong. Now it is objected, on the part of Mr. Jones, 
that there was no controversy between him and the vestry or 
congregation of Trinity Church. 

It is of importance to every religious denomination, that it 
should have the means of regulating its own concerns. Among 
these, few can be of more importance than the mode by which 
the connection between ministers and their parishes should 
be created and dissolved. Whilst on the one hand the minis- 
ter should not be made dependent on the mere will or plea- 
sure of his vestry or congregation, so as to enable them to re- 
move or dismiss him whenever their convenience or caprice 
might induce them to take such a measure; yet, on the other, 
a congregation ought not to be obliged to continue under the 
ministry of one who had become hateful to them, or whose 
usefulness had, in any measure, been destroyed. Whilst the 
relation between them ought to be put upon as permanent 
footing as the nature of things will reasonably admit, there 
ought to be some proper means provided in every church by 
which its ministers may withdraw themselves from their 
congregations, and congregations be relieved from their mi- 
nisters. 

Various cases may readily be imagined of uneasiness and 
dissatisfaction between ministers and their congregations, 
without any direct charge of criminality on either side : or if 
such charge could even be made, it may, sometimes, be more 
prudent to bring about a separation by gentler means, rather 

* Seethe ca7ion i p, 23. 

XX 



53^ 

than by reporting to those of a harsher kind, There can be 
neither reason, nor policy, in a minister's being continued in 
a congregation where he can no longer instruct by his exam- 
ple, nor edify by his teaching. Mutual usefulness is the 
bond of their union : whenever that is broken asunder, the 
connection itself is virtually dissolved. In all such cases 
domestic forums, established by the ecclesiastical authority 
of each church, are much better calculated for the settle- 
ment of whatever controversies may arise in congregations, 
than by leaving them unprovided for, to force the parties to 
appeal to the civil tribunals of the country. It is not there 
that the strifes arising out of christian relations ought to be 
heard : it is not by such a course that christian charity will 
be promoted. 

Our church, sensible of the importance of these considera- 
tions, has endeavoured to provide for cases like the present, 
and for the purpose of having a rule as uniform as possible 
on this subject, the general convention passed the canon in 
question, Nov/ by what means is it to be ascertained whether 
a controversy of the kind mentioned in the canon has arisen, 
or not ? Must it not of necessity be by the parties themselves 
in the first instance, and in case of disagreement, the very 
forum that has been provided to decide between them ? Can 
it be possible that the parties are to come to the civil tribu- 
nals first, to determine whether a controversy has arisen of 
which the ecclesiastical tribunal is to take cognizance ? Is 
not this to rob such tribunal of all its power, of all its influ- 
ence, and to forego the very benefits it was intended to se- 
cure ? On all these points the canon itself affords the. most 
satisfactory evidence. The interference of the bishop can 
only be required in " cases of controversy.'* The existence 
of them, if that should be denied or disputed by either party, 
becomes, of necessity, a matter of preliminary enquiry by the 
bishop, and may, indeed, be made so again before the bishop 
and his presbyters when met in convocation. So obvious 
was this course of proceeding that Mr. Jones spontaneously, 
as it were, pursued it. " This canon, says he, as is evident 
from its face and letter, provides for cases of controversy and 
differences which are bona fide between a clergyman and his 



S55 

congregation ; and that not merely a part of the congregation, 
but where the great body is opposed." P. 30 & 31 of System 
of Intolerance. And again in the same page, " the canon is to- 
tally inapplicable to the case in which I am concerned. No 
controversy; no differences, have taken place between the 
congregation, as a congregation, or between the vestry and 
me." Now as soon as the vestry had applied to the bishop, 
Mr. Jones tells us, page 48, that this objection was, together 
with others, " made the subject of a remonstrance to bishop 
Moore ; and a protest was founded upon them against farther 
proceeding." The question was thus distinctly presented to 
the consideration of bishop Moore, who determined it, as he 
iiad a right to d©« But he sent the protest to the vestry ! ex- 
claims Mr. Jones, and this, in the management and spirit of a 
pseudo lawyer, to apply to himself his own expression, he is 
pleased to consider as forming " a new precedent in the priii- 
ciples of jurisprudence. A judge upon the bench; the chief 
judge upon the bench, receives a plea in answer to a declar* 
ation, on a point of law; and sends it to the plaintiff, to re- 
ceive instructions, as to the process which he shall pursue/ 
Now unfortunately for this gentleman's display of his legal 
knowledge, this is precisely the course which is every day 
practised in our courts. Mr. Jones too, labouring under a 
similar error in the use of his law terms, tells us that his pro 
test produced a kind of demurrer on the part of the bishop ; 
but what precise kind it was, he has not deigned to inform 
us : it was certainly one not hitherto known in our jurispnt- 
dence, and our special pleaders will hereafter be indebted to 
Mr. Jones for its introduction, if they are only fortunate 
enough to find out what is meant by it, and how to apply it 
to any practical purpose. The truth is that his protest 
was in the nature of a plea, for whether differences did, or 
did not exist between the vestry and Mr* Jones was, with all 
due deference to his better judgment, a matter of fact, and 
not a point of law. But whether his protest is to be consid- 
ered as a demurrer or a plea, is of no consequence, for in 
either case the vestry of Trinity Church had a right to see 
and answer it. And yet this right, founded on principles of 
ss-atiira! justice; uwl sanctioned by the constant and uniform! 



practice of the courts from which he drew his comparison, is 
represented by Mr. Jones, as without precedent, and is actu- 
ally produced by him as a proof of bishop Moore's co-ope- 
ration with the vestry in " determined hostility" against him. 
But this is in perfect coincidence with the rest ot his com- 
plaints, and the proofs produced by him in their support : the 
first are the offspring of that green eyed monster that makes the 
very food it feeds on, whilst the latter are supplied by a distem- 
pered imagination, aided, I fear, by something worse. 

On receiving Mr. Jones's protest, bishop Moore, as it was 
his duty to do, transmitted it to the vestry, who had a right 
to be informed of its contents, and interpose an answer. This 
was done ; the vestry inform the bishop of the grounds upon 
which they proceeded, and again call upon him to convoke 
liis presbyters to decide between them and Mr. Jones.* The 
bishop, upon this determned, as every one, I think, will say 
he ought to have done, that the vestry had a right to be heard 
upon their complaint, especially as Mr. Jones might again 
make the same objection before the presbyters, that he had 
already done. They were convoked accordingly, and Mr. 
Jones renewed his protest before them ; who, having heard 
the proofs and allegations that the parties thought fit to make, 
decided, that a controversy did exist, and acted accord- 
ingly- 

This decision, thus made, by a competent tribunal, I 
might rely on as conclusive : but I will not : I will shew by 
a series of stubborn proofs, that neither sophistry nor elo- 
quence shall be able to bend, that a case of controversy did 
exist between the vestry or congregation of Trinity Church, 
and Mr. Jones, which loudly demanded a separation from 
each other : Nay were I disposed to go farther, I should find 
no difficulty in showing, that Mr. Jones owes it to the cle- 
mency ana forbearance of that body, that they did not of 
their own accord, dismiss him ; or that they did not bring him 
to trial under a very different canon, the just consequences of 
which would have been, that instead of being a suspended, 
Lie would now be a degraded clergyman. 

f See the resolution of the vestry ', p. 29, 



357 

Mr. Jones's " Solemn Appeal" was published on the very 
eve of the meeting of the special convention that had been 
called to elect an assistant bishop. All eyes, it was well 
known, were turned to Dr. Hobart as the most suitable per- 
son for that station; and against him Mr. Jones, therefore, 
aimed his blows; first in secret, afterwards publicly. The 
last dire resort was the " Solemn Appeal" published for the 
express, indeed the avowed purpose of defeating Dr. Hobart's 
election. Unfair as this measure was in relation to that gen- 
tleman, who could have no opportunity of answering Mr. 
Jones's charges until they had accomplished the purpose for 
which they had been made, every consideration of that kind 
was lost in the pernicious and deplorable effects which such a 
publication was calculated to produce in the church, and the 
injury it might inflict upon the great cause of Christianity 
itself. The attention of the vestry of the church was natur- 
ally and speedily directed to it. A committee was accord- 
ingly appointed to take the subject into consideration and re- 
port thereon.* This duty they performed on the 13th May, 
1811, and their report was confirmed by the vestry. " The 
publication in question, say they, appearing to relate to mat- 
ters, the cognizance and decision of which exclusively be- 
long to regular tribunals, established by the canons of the 
church, the committee deem it improper to present those 
matters to the vestry in any shape by which their merits 
may elsewhere be made the subject of discussion. Never- 
theless, in reference to the relation which subsists between 
this corporation and the junior assistant ministers employed 
by it, the committee deem it the right and duty of the vestry 
to notice, and, as occasion may require, to animadvert upon 
such of the public acts of those ministers, as may be calculat- 
ed to affect the peace and welfare of the religious community 
with which they are united. 

The committee having, in this view, considered the subject 
referred to them, are of opinion, that the pamphlet lately pub- 
lished by the rev. Mr. Jones, calls for the serious attention 
of this board. 

# See the whole report, pages 2 and 3, 



3B8 

The evident tendency of appeals to the public, on the sub- 
ject of private differences between ministers of the gospel, 
must in all cases be to weaken the reverence and respect 
justly due to the clerical office, to destroy its influence, impair 
the discipline and government of the church, and to bring re- 
proach upon the cause of religion." And again, " That a 
course obviously involving consequences of such deep im- 
portance to the character and welfare of the church, should 
have been resorted to by one of her ministers in the first in- 
stance, without even an experiment of the efficacy of that 
sanctioned and prescribed by her canons, adds to the grief 
which every reflecting mind must feel on this occasion, and 
leaves less room for extenuation than might exist under other 
circumstances." 

Could a more dignified and moderate course of conduct 
have been pursued by the vestry, or one more respectful to 
Mr. Jones ? Upon Mr. Jones's complaint against Dr. Kobart 
they forbear to express any opinion, lest it might have an 
effect on the tribunals to whom the cognizance of them be- 
longed, and before whom their merits might be made the sub- 
ject of discussion. But the tendency of the publication to 
disturb the peace and welfare of the church, to weaken the rev- 
erence and respect justly due to its ministers, to impair its dis- 
cipline, and above all to bring a reproach upon the cause of re- 
ligion, they thought they had a right to " animadvert upon ;" 
and had they not exercised that right they would have been 
wanting in their duty. They did, however, exercise it, tem- 
perately, but explicitly. Mr. Jones was furnished with a 
copy of this report, in which his conduct was placed before 
him in a manner calculated to excite his most serious reflec- 
tions. An opportunity was presented to him to review and 
deliberate upon what he had done : a locus poznitentiae was 
still afforded him. The rebuke of the vestry was mild but 
strong enough not to be mistaken. 

As the vestry intended to censure Mr. Jones, in the ex- 
pectation that it \Vould produce something, on his part, 
which .might expiate the offence he had committed, and stop 
the mischief his publication was calculated, if not designed 
to produce, it remained with Mr. Jones to take such mea- 



S$9 

sures as would have that effect. On the 13th of June, 1811,* 
a committee was appointed by the vestry, among other things, 
" to take into consideration the present situation of the 
church," which was perfectly understood to refer to the dis- 
turbed state of the church produced by the plaintiff' 's book.j It 
does not appear that a formal copy of this resolution was 
sent to Mr. Jones, nor was it at all necessary that it should ; 
but as Mr. Jones had one or two active friends in the vestry, 
it is probable that he was informed of it by them, and even 
knew the precise time at which this committee would report, 
for he addressed a letter to the vestry at the same meeting to 
which they made their report, and which, of itself, contains 
the most conclusive evidence of the existence of a contro- 
versy between the vestry and himself. This letter^ is dated 
the 4th September, 1811, and was delivered to the vestry 
at their meeting on the 5th. " As the subject," says Mr. 
Jones, " of the unhappy differences existing in the church, 
has been formally brought to the cognizance and investiga- 
tion of the vestry, I must beg to be indulged with the liberty 
of making a few remarks." Again, " when you were pleased 
to communicate to me, by your clerk, certain resolutions, 
expressive of your disapprobation of the mode of making 
my grievances known, the thought suggested itself to me, 
that possibly an answer might be expected; yet upon due re- 
flection, &c. it appeared the most respectful mode to submit 
in silence to what I could not but lament was a difference of 
sentiment from what I felt myself compelled to entertain." 
He concludes by declaring his readiness to adopt any mea- 
sures, which their " wisdom may devise, for the restoration 
of peace and harmony to the church." Thus Mr. Jones, 
himself, acknowledges that unhappy differences existed in the 
church, in consequence of his publication; that he under- 
stood the resolutions of the vestry, of the 13th of May, to 
be, as they were intended to be, a disapprobation of his con- 
duct; but that as for himself, lie thought the vestry entirely 

* See the testimony, p. 196. 

f See Mr. LaighVs evidence, p. 224 

1 See the letter, p, 27. 



360 

wrong, and himself entirely right, and that he, therefore ? 
could not but lament the difference of sentiment between them 
on this subject, which he felt himself compelled to entertain. 
Here then was, at least, a pretty decided difference of opin- 
ion. Ah, but, says Mr. Jones, in the " spirit and manage- 
ment" of something more than a " pseudo lawyer," of what 
might be called of a quibbling attorney, however the vestry 
and myself may differ in opinion, there can be no controversy 
whilst I remain silent.* Therefore, he determined upon si= 
lence as the safest mode of avoiding it, for, says he, " had I 
attempted to answer, immediately I should have been en- 
gaged in a controversy with the vestry." And he really sus- 
pects the vestry of contriving together to draw from him an 
answer, as " a plan artfully laid to ensnare" him. Thus do 
distrust and suspicion forever weave their web in his jealous 
mind. Thus, truly, do we see verified, that whenever a man 
becomes an Ishnael himself, he at once supposes that the 
hand of every other man is against him in return. 

The vestry, as we have seen, censured Mr. Jones in May. 
In June, nothing having been done bj' him to remove the 
cause of this censure, a committee was appointed to devise 
and report what further measures ought, on their part, to be 
taken, which they did on the 5th of September, 1811. In 
the mean time, although there was a difference, according to 
Mr. Jones's own admission, between him and the vestry, on 
points of vital importance, yet there was no controversy; be- 
cause, although the vestry had complained against him, and 
although he had done nothing to remove the ground of their 
complaint; yet, forsooth, as he continued silent, as he nei- 
ther justified himself to the vestry, nor recriminated them in 
turn, but merely persevered in his own opinion, no contro- 
versy had taken place. "It did not occur to me," says Mr. 
King,| and I believe it would not to any sensible man, that 
when " the parish complains, but the clergyman does not re- 
form, but persists in his delinquency," and thus " affords to 
his parish continual cause of dissatisfaction and complaint, 

# See his System of Intolerance, p. 21. 
f See Mr, King's testimony, p. 25 A. 



361 

that because he does not complain of them, that therefore ther«$ 
is no controversy or difference between them. But it did 
seem to me to be true, that where one party violates his duty 5, 
and the other, having an interest in its performance, come 
plains of its violation, that a difference exists between them. ,J 
And I barely beg leave to add, that I believe there can be as 
little doubt that such a difference would amount to a contro- 
versy, within the meaning of the 32d canon 5 and that is 
precisely the one which had arisen between the vestry an$ 
Mr. Jones. 

On the 5th of September, however, Mr. Jones did answer* 
the vestry, and justified and defended himself against their 
disapprobation of his conduct : he clings to his own opinion, 
|n opposition to theirs ? as one, which, after the opportunity 
that had been given for reflection, he felt himself compelled 
to entertain. From this period, then, according to his own 
admission, he " was engaged in controversy with the ves= 
try." At this period, the committee on the st$te of the 
church made their report.* They advert to " the division^ 
disorder, and other mischiefs, which have been produced by 
the publication of the" *' Solemn Appeal," and to M tlie dis- 
orderly state of Trinity Church and its chapels, proceeding 
from the misbehaviour of Mr. Jones." The committee them 
say, they w are constrained to declare, that in their opinion, 
the peace of the church cannot be re-established, so long as 
the connexion between the vestry and the rev. Mr. Jones re° 
maias undissolved*" They therefore express it as " their 
opinion, that the connexion with Mr» Jones ought to be dis~ 
solved," and leave it to " the vestry to consider and deter- 
mine whether a due regard for the peace and prosperity of 
the church, does not require of them, without delay, iq have 
recourse to the means provided by the canons to effect this 
dissolution." The vestry proceeded to the consideration of 
this report, and agreeing with the committee in tjip view 
i^iey had taken of the subject, and having Mr. Joneses writ;? 
Jen pledge lying before them, that he was ready to adopf 
my measures, which their wisdom might devise, for the resiorq?. 

" See the report p 4 

3f V 



3S2 

$im of peace and harmony to the church, they passed the ioh 
lowing resolutions : — 

" Whereas differences and controversies exist between the 
rev. Mr. Cave Jones, one of the assistant ministers of this 
church, and this vestry, arising out of the publication, en= 
titled, " A Solemn Appeal to the Church," which are of 
B'uch a nature, as cannot be settled between them; 

" Resolved, therefore, that application, representing the 
fiaine, be made on the part of this board, to the bishop q£ 
this diocese, pursuant to the 32d canon of the general con-j 
vention" 

What other consistent course could the vestry have pur- 
gned towards Mr. Jones? They considered him as the cause 
of division, disorder, and other mischief in the church, which 
lie not only took no measures to. stop, but persisted in the 
vindication of his conduct. To have continued him in a sir 
fuation, where he could best foster and increase the evils 
complained of, and under which the church was suffering, 
^vould have been madness, They, therefore, rightly deter- 
mined that the only means of restoring the peace of the 
church, was by dissolving a connexion which could only 
prolong the mischiefs they deplored. The result has shown 
their wisdom ; the reign of peace and harmony is again es- 
tablished in the church, and, I trust, will be confirmed by 
the judgment to be pronounced in this cause. 

It is surely unnecessary to look for further evidence cf thf 
existence of a controversy between the vestry and Mr- 
Jones. But if more is wanted, it is at hantf. In the united 
testimony of the witnesses, who have been examined to this 
point, there is enough to satisfy scepticism itself.* I will 
not stop to recapitulate it, but I venture to say that it will 
come even within Mr. Jones's own rule,f by establishing 
that the controversy between him and the congregation, wa§ 

* See testimony cf Mr. Clark, p. 204. Mr. Kingsland, p. 
210, Mr. Kemper, p. 211. Mr. Rodgers, p. 214. Mr.Ogq- 
hury, p. 216. Mr. Swords, p. 219. Mr. Laight, p, ?S4- 
Mr. Borvdcn, p. 243. 

v Seep, 30, 31, Sysi. of Intol 



S6S 

mt confined merely to a part, but that the great body of it 
stood opposed to him. To such a case he, himself, admit? 
that the canon applies, and such a one is fully made out..' 
And yet, for this man, in the face of the documents to which 
I have referred, his own acts, his own declarations, and the 
overwhelming mass of other evidence, to contend, not only 
before the bishop and his presbyters, but again before this 
Court, that there never has been a controversy between the 
vestry and him, requires a degree of matchless impudence, 
to which, I hope, few persons besides himself would be 
equal. 

If, however, a controversy existed between the vestry and 
M r. Jones, still we are told that no measures were taken tc 
have it " settled" or brought to a " favourable termination/ 
Without which the canon could not apply. 

I ask, on this, as on the question whether there was a 
controversy or not, who was to decide whether it could be 
Settled or favourably terminated? And I answer to this, as 
I did to that, the parties themselves first; the bishop and his 
presbyters finally. Can this court be better judges on that 
aubject, than the parties and the tribunal to whom it was re- 
ferred? Is not the evidence from both, satisfactory that no 
such settlement could be made, and do not the witnesses, to 
whom 1 have just referred, confirm it? The very nature and 
cause of the controversy show, indeed, that it could not be 
settled. Mr. Jones was jealous and envious of his associate 
ministers, he had imputed to them tfee most unworthy mo- 
tives, and 'had endeavoured, by all the means within his 
power, to draw upon them the tlispleasure, the distrust, and 
even the hatred of the congregations committed to their 
common care. The vestry foreseeing the tendency of this 
conduct on the part of Mr. Jones, after remarking upon the 
consequences of his publication to the church at large, and 
to religion itself, with great propriety proceed to mark out 
its effects upon Trinity Church in particular. 

"In the case, say they, of an associated ministry, like) 
that of Trinity Church, evils more immediate and pernicious 
are to be apprehended, inasmuch as the people will naturally 
take part in the disputes of their pastors? their own passions 



md prejudices will be brought into the contest, and thesfc 
will soon banish from the mind that peace and good will., 
which can alone dispose it to the reception of religious in- 
struction."* 

After this expression of their sentiments by the vestry, 
after they had thus plainly pointed out to Mr. Jones, the 
immediate and pernicious evils which would follow the fatal 
step he had taken, does he attempt to retrace it, dees he ac- 
knowledge his error, or manifest, on any occasion, the least 
disposition to prevent the misfortunes which the vestry had 
bo feelingly deplored ? No : on this subject he plainly tells 
them, we hold different opinions: I feel myself compelled to 
maintain mine, and therefore there can be no compromise, 
no settlement between us. When he was told, in the lan- 
guage of sorrow, by a distinguished friend of the church,! of 
the mischief and schism that had arisen in it from his publi- 
cation, he exultingly exclaimed, I am not sorry at all for 
having published, and then endeavours to throw the odium. on 
Dr. Hobart, which was chargeable on himself alone. 

Mr. Jones having taken his stand, and insisting upon his 
right to do what he had done, shut the door against any set* 
tlement of the controversy between him and the vestry 
Nothing was left but to induce him peaceably lo resign a 
situation in which he could be no longer useful, Or to compel 
his removal by the proceeding which was finally adopted, 
Mr. Jones, himself, admits that various overtures were made 
to him for that purpose. His friends, he says, " wished a 
compromise to take place," and suggested this to individual 
members of the vestry, whose answer was, " that they wish= 
ed me to make a proposition to the vestry. To that mea- 
sure, when hinted to me, my uniform answer was, " I have 
Ho propositions to make, No desire for change exists on my 
part ; and therefore I have no object to obtain. I am ready* 
however, to pay a respectful attention to any measures 
which the vestry may see proper to propose." Now, it is 
worthy of remark, that this high minded gentleman, wh& 

* Report of May, p. 3. 

\ See Mr, Swords' s testimony, p, 218. 



36S 

being the offending party, demands, with a lofty pride, (he 
right to receive propositions from the one whom he had of- 
fended, was actually, at this very time, setting on foot a 
project to enlist the influence of certain individuals in the 
vestry to bestow upon him the rectorship of the largest 
church in the City, If he could have got the vestry to have 
made this proposition, there is no doubt but that it would 
have received his most profound and respectful attention. 
These were the terms of amicable adjustment, to which he 
probably alluded in his letter to the vestry of the 5th of Sep^ 
tember, into which he professed himself ready to enter, and 
which he thought Would be consistent with his character as a 
gentleman and a christian. How far his conduct comported 
with either, when in his communications to the vestry 3 
through his friends, he took the high ground of receiving only 
their propositions, whilst he was secretly exerting himself to 
obtain the rectorship of St. John's, I submit to those who* 
can properly appreciate both those characters. That this 
was the fact, appears from the testimony of Mr. William 
Hamersley.* 

Mr. Hamersley says, that Mr, Jones Called on m'm a few 
days " subsequent to bishop Hobart's consecration,! and ob- 
served to the deponent, that he presumed the deponent was 
acquainted with the unfortunate differences in the church, or 
which beset the church, and after some farther conversation* 
the plaintiff observed to the deponent, that he wished the 
matters could be so far settled, that he, the plaintiff, might 
be assigned to St, John's Church, as that in which he had the 
most personal friends, conceiving that by such an arrange- 
ment the differences in the church would be healed" Mr. Ham- 
ersley further sa^s, " that he stated to the plaintiff, that 
he regretted that his pamphlet had ever appeared : to which 
the plaintiff replied that that was matter of opinion." That 
" the conversation terminated by a request of Mr. Jones, 
that the deponent would speak to some of the vestry, on the 
subject of assigning him, the plaintiff, to St, John's Church, 

# See Mr. Hamer slcy's testimony, p. 130. 

f He was consecrated on the 29th of May, 1811 



$66 

&nd the deponent told the plaintiff that he would do so, and 
as he apprehends, lie at the same time told the plaintiff that 
there his interference must cease ; and the deponent agreed 
to speak to Garrit Van Wagenen, David M. Clarkson, and 
Frederick De Peyster. The deponent says, that the plain- 
tiff had previously spoken to Mr. Van Wagenen, and, as he 
believes, to Mr. De Peyster on the same subject." 

Thus could Mr. Jones, at one moment, erect his crest 
"with swollen pride to the vestry, and tell them, it is beneath 
my character as a gentleman and a christian to make any 
propositions to you, whilst at another, in order, good meek 
Soul, to heal the differences in the church, though he has since 
declared there were none, he could bend to the humble office 
of begging himself, and asking his friends to beg for him, the 
favour of individual members of that same vestry to set apart 
St. John's Church, with a suitable endowment of course, 
and elevate him to its rectorship : a situation which would 
nave been more respectable and lucrative than that of any 
other clergyman in the city. How fit must he be to teach 
others the christian virtue, humility, who can set so bright 
an example of its exercise in himseif ! My heart sickens 
within me at the thought of so much pride, vanity, and hy- 
pocrisy being united in one, whose duty it was, by his ex- 
ample, to show, and his precepts to teach the folly and the 
sin of these hateful vices. 

During the time, as I presume it was, that Mr. Jones was 
pursuing the laudable scheme which I have just noticed, and 
after he had refused to make any propositions to the vestry, 
he informs us, # that " something like a regular negociation 
was commenced by One Of the active members, not indeed 
with authority, but, as he said, oil his own responsibility. 
He wished to know what compensation would be accepted. 
He desired a very valuable and influential friend, who also 
&cted informally, to use his endeavours to get me to name 
my terms. This was frequently repeated, and thrown into 
different shapes. But it was all a snare. It was a lure 
thrown out to entrap me. Had I, for one moment listened 

* Page 25 of System of Intolerance 



fo this plan, immediately I should have sold myself into tn« 
power of my opponents." Thus, again, does the jaundiced 
eye of jealousy disorder the friendly attempts that were made 
to smother a controversy that could not be settled, by in- 
ducing Mr. Jones to name the terms upon which he would 
Jiimself agree to a separation, which the peace and harmony 
of the church had rendered indispensable. These efforts* 
however, which had so manifestly in view the interests of 
the church on the one hand, and tjie saving of Mr. Jones's 
feelings on the other, are construed by him into snares and 
lures, spread around him to catch his unwary feet, and make 
him the instrument of selling himself into the power of his op- 
ponents. To a mind thus prolific, in the phantom of imagined; 
hostility towards him, the approach is difficult : sincerity is 
treated as contrivance, and the proffer of conciliation as an 
artful attempt to deceive. With such a man, it must be evi- 
dent, that the controversy in question, could never have 
been settled : that there was no choice left, but to resort to a 
competent tribunal, who could cut the knot of an union that 
could not be untied by mutual consent. 

Another objection to the application of this canon to Mr, 
Jones, is, that the controversy ought to be, not between the 
vestry and him, but between the congregation and him, be- 
cause, the words of the canon are, that it shall " apply also 
to the cases of associated rectors and assistant ministers and 
their congregations." Now, says my learned frieiid, as Mr- 
Jones was an assistant minister, yoij must show that a con- 
troversy existed between him and the congregation; for the 
vestry can have nothing to do with it ? This criticism par- 
takes of the same character of some others, on which I have 
before remarked. It is an attempt to make a distinction 
where none exists ; and I should have been disposed to hav$ 
passed it by in silence, had it not, after it was first men- 
tioned, been repeated with a gravity that seemed to entitle 
i\ to some notice. 

Can it, for a moment, be imagined, that it was intended 
by this canon to make one rule for the minister, and another 
for the assistant ; and that whilst the former dealt with the 
•F.estry. tije latter was to communicate only witji tfee CQn.gr$? 



ads 

gation? Would there be either wisdom or convenience in 
such a rule? If an assistant minister should neglect his 
duty, or otherwise misbehave himself, ever so grossly, and 
the vestry should undertake to remonstrate with him, he has 
nothing to do, according to this construction of the canon, 
but to open it, and tell them, you have no right to complain; 
it belongs to the congregation-, and as long as they do not 
convene in a body and censure me, you must be silent. 
This would be a proceeding unknown to our form of church 
government, and would be unworthy of its discipline. The 
vestry are, in fact, the congregation; that is, they are cho- 
sen by, and represent them, and have the management of all 
their affairs of this kind. By whom was Mr. Jones called? 
By a vote of the congregation? Surely not; but by the 
vestry, who having given him his situation in the church, it 
must be by their agency that he is to be removed from it. 
The words vestry or congregation, are ? throughout the canon* 
used as convertible terms. Look at the very title of the 
canon. It is one, " respecting differences between minis- 
ters and their congregations;" and it might as well from this 
be contended, that even in the case of a rector or minister, 
the differences must be between him and his congregation* 
as distinct from the vestry. Again, the first sentence of the 
jeanon shows, that vestry and congregation mean the same 
thing. " In all cases of controversy between ministers who 
aow, or may hereafter hold the rectorship of churches or pa= 
iishes, and the vestry or congregations of such churches or 
parishes," &c. In short, the attempt might as well be made 
fco show that the words rector and minister were not used as 
synonymous. 

The next objection which I shall consider, though it is of 
a more serious character than the last, will, I am confident,, 
be shown to be not less groundless. It is this: that the 
canon is inapplicable, because it was passed after Mr. Jones's 
call, at which time, it is insisted, his rights were fixed, and 
could not be affected by any law of the church subsequently 
enacted. 

In support of this position, or rather as the foundation of it # 
it is urged that Mr, Jones's call was for life ; I propose to 



369 

show, in the first place, that the fact is not so; and secondly, 
if it even is, that still he is liable to the operation of the 
canon. 

Mr. Jones's call has been relied on to show either in itself, 
or connected with the evidence of some of the witnesses in 
the cause, that the tenure of his office was for life. The call,* 
however, proves nothing, perhaps, one way or the other* 
The committee inform him that they are commissioned by 
the vestry of Trinity Church to invite him " to accept the 
office of an assistant minister in the churches under their 
care, upon the same terms on which the other assistant minis- 
ters are placed : the salary is five hundred pounds per an- 
num." There is nothing in this then that proves that Mr. 
Jones was called for life : all that is said upon the subject is, 
that he was to come upon the same terms with the other as- 
sistant ministers, which, from what immediately follows, 
would seem to relate to the salary only; that is, that he 
should be on the same terms with them in regard to the sala- 
ry, which was five hundred pounds a year. But allowing the 
words a larger sense, and that he was, in every respect, to 
be upon the same terms with the other assistants, it would 
still remain to be shown that they were called for life. Now 
it is a little remarkable, considering the industry with which 
witnesses have been collected by Mr. Jones, that the only 
one that I recollect, who says a word on this subject, is Mr. 
Van Wageneujf who speaks in the most vague manner ima- 
ginable. " He always understood the call was for life, except 
some malpractice were proved." I put out of view the testi- 
mony of those witnesses who speak of the tenure of a rector ; 
for although that may be for life, it does not follow that the 
assistant ministers of Trinity Church held their offices on the 
same terms. The true rule on this point is the one mention- 
ed hy Mr. King in his answer to the ninth direct interroga- 
toryjj, that the contracts between the vestry and the assist- 
ant ministers expressing no particular tenure they hold dur- 
ing pleasure. 

*■. See the mil, page 24 f See page 120, § Seepage 256, 

3 Z 



Conscious of the weakness, or rather the want of evidence, 
to show that Mr. Jones's call was for life, we were told by 
the opening counsel, that the vestry have themselves not 
only admitted this, but likewise that the 32d canon could not 
apply to Mr. Jones's case. If this be so, I do concede that 
the evidence is not only competent, but that it ought to be 
conclusive against, us. Since, however, the acts of the ves- 
try are cited as evidence against them, I have a right to 
show not only that they do not afford the proof of what they 
ere supposed to do ; but directly the contrary : that instead 
of establishing Mr. Jones's call to be for life and the inappli- 
cability of the canon to him, they clearly show that his call 
was during pleasure, and that the canon was as clearly ap- 
plicable to his case. If I can do this, then the evidence is 
as competent and conclusive for us, as it would have been 
against us. With these remarks let us enter upon the exami- 
nation of the evidence referred to. It is to be found in the 
report of the veatry # of the 5th September 1811, and is as 
follows : 

" From the nature and terms of the engagement between 
the vestry and the rev. Mr. Jones, there can be little doubt 
that the same may, for sufficient cause, at any time be dis- 
solved by either party, it being presumed, that the canons of 
the church do not affect contracts which had been previously 
made."' 

Now, says my learned friend, if the tenure of Mr. Joneses 
office w r as durante bene placito, the vestry might, at any time, 
without any reason for it, have dismissed Mr. Jones; but 
here they admit they could only have done so for sufficient 
cause, which shows that in their own opinion he. held his 
office for life. Let us see if this be either the obvious sense 
of this part of the sentence, or if, indeed, it is capable of be- 
ing tortured into such a meaning. 

The committee, in whose report the passage is contained, 
having determined that the connection between the vestry 
and Mr. Jones ought to be dissolved, suggest two modes by 
which it may be done : one by the vestry themselves, the 

* See page 4, 



371 

^vther by applying to the bishop for the purpose. With re* 
gard to the first, they then say, there can be no doubt of the 
power of the vestry, because, from the nature and terms of 
the engagement between them, it may, at any time, for suf- 
ficient cause, be dissolved by either party ; that is, the vestry 
may put an end to it on their part, and Mr. Jones on his. 
Now if this contract was for life, I apprehend it could not be 
dissolved even for sufficient cause by one of the parties only. 
To do this, without the interference of a competent tribunal, 
the act must be joint and mutual. The vestry however, ex- 
pressly declare that either party may, whenever they think 
they have sufficient cause, and of which they must respec- 
tively judge for themselves, dissolve this contract; and if 
either party could do this, it is*precisely the description of a 
holding at pleasure, and is utterly incompatible with any 
tenure of a more stable kind. As to the words sufficient causc^ 
which are supposed to contain the magic spell by which this 
contract is converted into one for life, they apply as much to 
one party as the other, and merely import that though each 
has the right of withdrawing from the other, whenever they 
please, yet that in good faith and mutual respect, this ought 
not to be done wantonly, but for what each should deem an 
adequate or sufficient cause. 

Having, I hope, thus shown, that the words relied upon, 
Instead of amounting to proof of the vestry's admission that 
Mr. Jones's call was for life, establish the very reverse, I pro- 
ceed to strengthen this conclusion, and to show, besides, that 
there is a similar mistake in supposing that the vestry have 
also expressed their opinion that Mr. Jones's case did not 
come within the canon under consideration. 

The committee, as a reason for thinking that the vestrj r 
could of their own accord discharge Mr. Jones, add, " it be- 
ing presumed that the canons of the church do not affect con- 
tracts which had been previously made." Here, the gentle- 
man exultingly exclaims, is, a distinct recognition by the 
vestry of the principle for which he contends, for they de- 
clare that the canons cannot affect a contract previously made ; 
and as Mr. Jones's was made before the thirty second canon 
was, it of course., says he, cannot be affected by that canon. 



S7£ 

Tliis is one of the hasty conclusions at which my friend has 
been too apt to arrive in the course of his argument in this 
cause. From the same premises, I shall, however, come to 
a very different result. 

The committee, it will be recollected, are speaking of a 
dissolution of the contract between the vestry and Mr. Jones, 
and had expressed their opinion that it might be dissolved 
by either party, according to its own terms, which they su$t 
posed could not be altered by any subsequent canon. The 
canon which the committee had in view, however, was not 
the thirty second, but the thirtieth,* which was also passed 
after Mr. Jones's call, and provides, that " when any minis- 
ter hath been regularly instituted or settled in- a parish or 
church, he shall not be dismissed without the concurrence of 
the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese or state." " Nor 
shall any minister leave his congregation, against their will, 
without the concurrence of the ecclesiastical authority afore- 
said." The general convention who passed this canon, 
meant to disapprove of those contracts between ministers and 
their congregations by which they might, at the pleasure of 
either, separate themselves from each other; and according- 
ly prohibits the latter from dismissing the former, or the for- 
mer from leaving the latter without the concurrence of eccle- 
siastical authority. Now the reasoning of the committee 
may be put thus: the contract with Mr. Jones may clearly, 
according to its own nature, be terminated at the pleasure of 
either party, and we suppose this right must still continue, 
notwithstanding the canon last referred to, for as that was 
passed after the contract was made, it cannot affect any rights 
settled by the parties under that contract : in other words, 
they had a right to make the contract which they did, be- 
cause no rule or law of the church prevented it. Afterwards, 
however, such contracts were prohibited, and of course could 
not, from that period, be made ; but this prohibition could 
not retroact. on a contract previously made, and which it 
was lawful at the time to make, so as to render it invalid* 
The vestry may, therefore, still exercise all their rights ub- 

* Seepage 20* 



37S 

fe the contract with Mr. Jones, notwithstanding this canon $ 
and if they could by their own act dismiss him before its 
passage, they can equally do so since. This was the argu- 
ment of the committee, and of the vestry who adopted it, 
and to my mind it is conclusive. But whether their reason- 
ing was right or wrong happens to be entirely immaterial, for 
if the canon referred to did even control the contract, there 
could be no doubt but that it might then be dissolved by 
either party with the concurrence of the ecclesiastical authority. 

The committee, accordingly, presented to the vestry the 
alternative of dissolving the contract themselves, or of ob- 
taining the ecclesiastical concurrence for that purpose, by 
proceeding under the thirty-second canon, the latter of which, 
as the least offensive, and giving Mr. Jones the fairest chance, 
they recommended, and the vestry agreed to accordingly. 
So far, therefore, are these acts of the vestry from affording 
the slightest evidence of the points which it was supposed, 
on the other side, they incontestibly did, that we could not 
on our part wish for higher evidence of the regularity and 
correctness of the proceedings which have taken place a- 
gainst Mr. Jones. 

Independent of the evidence which I have been consider- 
ing relative to Mr. Jones's call, a strong argument is to be 
drawn from the intrinsic nature of his situation, that it was 
not for life. It is entirely different from that of a rector, 
whose usefulness and independence may require that the ten- 
ure of his office should be for life, subject to such regulations 
as the proper ecclesiastical authority may see fit to impose. 
But the assistant rector, and Mr. Jones, as I shall presently 
show, was not even that, is employed for the express purpose of 
giving aid and relief to the rector in performing the duties of 
the parish. He is therefore inferior and subordinate to the 
rector, to whom he is intended to be but a mere auxiliary - 
Would there not, therefore, be an impropriety in putting 
them upon the same footing as to the stability of their res* 
pective offices ? Suppose the rector and assistant should dis= 
agree, who is to give way? The assistant may be guilty of 
no moral offence, and yet be useless to the rector as an as- 
sistant As he is chosen then by the vestry, with the neces- 



s&ry concurrence of (he rector, to co-operate with him. there 
seems to be a propriety in keeping him dependent upon them 
as the best means of securing to themselves the benefit of 
the services he was expected to render, so that when he did 
not answer this purpose they should be at liberty to dismiss 
Mm and choose another. 

Again, the employment of assistant ministers has been 
rendered necessary from the increase of the congregation of 
Trinity Church, by the addition of her chapels, and the con- 
sequent increase of parish duty. Now, suppose, as has al- 
ready been done with one, the other chapels should also be 
separated from Trinity Church, and made independent 
churches, it is very evident that Trinity Church, would not 
then require a rector, assistant rector, and three assistant 
ministers; which shows that their call could never have been 
for life, but was to depend upon the necessity or convenience 
of their employment. 

I am aware that these observations may be met by show- 
ing that according to the charter of Trinity Church, the as- 
sistant rector, like the rector himself, holds his office during 
life, and that if this had been in itself improper, it would pro- 
bably not have been introduced into it. But connected with 
this fact, it should also be recollected, that the rector of Trini- 
ty Church, under its original charter, was the bishop of Lon- 
don, and as it was not presumed that he would come hither 
to discharge his parochial duties, and as the assistant rector 
could of course never interfere or differ with his principal in 
the performance of their several duties, his office might well 
be put on a more permanent tenure than if both were resident 
here. And yet even the assistant under the charter may for 
" cause, reasonably proved, be displaced by the rector for the 
time being, by and with the consent of the said vestrymen, 
or any eleven of them."* 

Let us now, however, suppose that Mr. Jones did hold his 
office of assistant minister for life ; I shall still show that he 
Is subject to the application of this canon. 

* See page 22* 



375 

Every office that is held for life, has annexed to it, as a 
necessary intrinsic condition, that it is to depend upon good 
behaviour. Hence an office for life, or quam diuse bene ges- 
serit are used to express the same thing. Whoever, there- 
fore, enters upon such an office undertakes to perform its du- 
ties with becoming fidelity and abilities. He moreover enga- 
ges to conform himself to the directions and regulations of 
those who have the right to prescribe to him rules for his con- 
duct. These implied obligations, on his part, have all the 
force of the most positive stipulations : they are the condi- 
tions upon which he is to hold his office for life, and if he 
fails in their performance he cannot complain at being de- 
prived of it. 

Let us apply these principles to the case of Mr. Jones. When 
he became an assistant minister of Trinity Church, if the 
contract, on their part, was that he should hold the situation 
for life, or during good behaviour, and should be paid accord- 
ingly, the corresponding part of the contract on his was, 
that he should perform the duties of his sacred office in an 
acceptable and useful manner to his congregation ; that he 
should submit to the canons which from time to time should 
be made by the competent ecclesiastical authority for the 
discipline of the church ; that he should so demean himself 
as not to fall under the displeasure of his congregation, and 
thereby create differences and controversies between them, 
and that he should not, by a disobedient and refractory temper 
refuse submission to the judgment of those who, according to 
the government of the church, are entrusted to enforce its 
laws. Now, has not Mr. Jones broken the contract in all 
its essential points ? by a restless and turbulent disposition, 
excited by envy, he not only destroyed his own usefulness, 
but he was busy in the destruction of that of others with whom 
he was associated. He was no longer able to discharge the du- 
ties for which he was called, for many had grown so dissatis- 
fied with his conduct that they would not set under his minis- 
try, and by a course of rebellious disobedience of the canons 
and authority of the church has disqualified himself from per- 
forming his clerical functions either in Trinity Church or else- 
where. With what face, then, can Mr. Jones talk of his 



3?6 

contract for life, when he has unfitted himself for the per- 
formance of it on his part ? when he has by his own acts di~ 
vested himself of the capacity to discharge a single duty that 
appertained to his station. 

To exempt Mr. Jones from the application of this canon 
would be to push the doctrine of inviolability of office and 
contracts to a most dangerous extreme : one that receives no 
countenance in the system of our civil jurisprudence, and I 
trust will never form a part of the church government of any 
religious denomination in our country. What ! is a clergy- 
man, because he is called for life, to be above all law ; all 
control, all coercion of his church ? Is his contract of so 
unalterable a nature, that when once made there can be no 
superior power that has the right to intermeddle with it ? This 
can be the case no where, but especially it is not in the church 
of which Mr. Jones was once an officiating minister. 

When he first took the sacred orders of a priest, he made a 
solemn vow, which ought alone to silence every argument 
that has been urged for him on this topic. Among the ques- 
tions which are propounded by the bishop on that occasion 
to the candidate, for his assent, is the following.* 

The bishop. Will you reverently obey your bishop and o* 
tlier chief ministers, who, according to the canons of the 
church, may have the charge and government over you ; fol- 
lowing with a glad mind and will, their godly admonitions 
and submitting yourself to their godly judgments ? 

Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper." 

Here then, is a contract which was antecedent to every 
other that Mr. Jones could have made in his clerical charac- 
ter, and from its nature must be paramount to every other : 
he could make none inconsistent with it. 

According to this he is forever reverently to obey his bishop 
and other chief ministers according to the canons of the church. 
Whatever engagements Mr. Jones afterwards entered into 
were of necessity subservient to this : by this they were re- 
gulated and controlled, and if in collision with it, would b* 
void. 

* See page 20, 



Sff 

Again, in the very letter of institution which was given to 
Mr. Jones, by the bishop when he was instituted into Trini- 
ty Church, he is invested with his office upon this express 
condition :* 

" You continuing in communion with us, and complying 
with the rubrics and canons of the church, and with such 
lawful directions as you shall at any time receive from us." 
" And in case of any difference between you and your con- 
gregation as to a separation, and dissolution of all sacerdotal 
connexion between you and them, we, your bishop, with the 
advice of our presbyters, are to be the ultimate arbiter and 
judge." 

If therefore, the contract between the vestry and Mr. Jones 
was for life, it was subject to his engagement when he be- 
came a priest, and depended upon his complying with the ru- 
brics and canons of the church, and in case of any difference 
between him and the vestry respecting a separation, of sub- 
mitting himself to the judgment of the bishop and his pres- 
byters. 

But independent of these last considerations, why are not 
calls for life subject to the control and government of the 
convention ? And why may they not prescribe modes to 
put an end to them, whenever the peace and happiness of 
the church require it? Our statute books are full of laws, 
prescribing modes by which contracts may be dissolve^ 
The whole system of bankrupt and insolvent laws must 
otherwise be blotted out of our system of jurisprudence, 
The contract of marriage itself, which is not only for life, 
but involving all its best and tenderest interests, has not 
been thought exempt from legislative regulation, and its dis- 
solution is accordingly provided for in certain cases, where 
it was formed, as well before as after the passing of the act 
So in like manner the convention are the ecclesiastical legis- 
lature, and have the same right to legislate over ecclesiasti- 
cal contracts, that the state legislature has over the civil con= 
tracts of its citizens. It is no objection, therefore, to the 
canon under which Mr- Jones ha3 been proceeded against, 

* Seepage 19* 

a a 2 



$7$ 

that it was passed after he was settled 'in Trinity Churchy 
for the convention had full power to pass it, and Mr. Jones 
was bound to yield to it his obedience. 

The last objection to the applicability of this canon to Mr. 
Jones's ease, is, that it interferes with the usages and char- 
ter of Trinity Church. The words of the canon, upon this 
noint, are, that it " shall not be obligatory upon the church 
in those states or dioceses, with whose usages, laws, or 
charters it interferes." This exception, according to my con- 
struction of it, does not apply to the usages, laws, or char- 
ter of any one separate or individual church, but to the whole 
church, in its collective capacity, of a state or diocese. 
The expression would otherwise have been, " shall not be 
obligatory upon any church," &c. or upon the churches, &c 
This would have shown that the word church was used as 
equivalent to congregation ; but whenever the words the church 
are used in the manner they are here, the whole body of the 
church within a state or diocese is meant, and consequently, 
the laws, usages, and charters, referred to in the canon, are 
such as are common, and which is actually the case in some 
of the states, to all the church, that is, to every episcopal 
congregation, in any particular state or diocese, and not to 
any one church or congregation singly. In confirmation too 
of this construction, it should be remembered that the gene 
ral convention legislate over dioceses by passing canons ap 
plicable to them all, leaving to the state conventions to legis- 
late over their individual churches. 

I will now cite some instances to show the invariable use 
of the words the church, church or churches, to be as I have 
just stated. 

In the first article of the constitution of the episcopal 
church in the United States, will be found an example of 
the first kind, " the church in each state shall be entitled to 
a representation of both the clergy and laity." So in the 
sixth article of the same constitution : " In every state, the 
mode of trying clergymen shall be instituted by the conven- 
tion of the church therein." In like manner, we find it in 
the fifth canon of the general convention : " If, during the 
recess of the general convention, the church in any state or 



379 

Yioccse, should be desirous of the consecration of a bishop,'' 
&c. Again, in the thirteenth canon of the general conven- 
tion, " No person shall be ordained priest, &c unless the 
standing committee of the church, in the state for which he 
is ordained, shall certify to the bishop," &c. Other instances 
might be adduced, of a similar use of these words; but those 
I have mentioned, are sufficient to show that the church is an 
expression used in contradistinction to any one particular 
church or congregation, and is a sort of collective or repre- 
sentative description of the whole. 

I shall now refer to an instance m which it became neces- 
sary to speak of the church in the sense I have just men- 
tioned, and also of the individual churches, which serves to 
mark most clearly the soundness of the distinction I have 
made. It is in the twentieth canon of the general conven- 
tion. " Every bishop, in this church, shall visit the churches 
within his diocese or district, for the purpose of examining; 
his church" &c. And such visitations are to be made 
" once in three years at least, by every bishop to every 
church within his diocese or district," which shall make pro- 
vision for the expences thereof. " And it is hereby declared 
to be the duty of the minister and vestry of every church or 
congregation, to make such provision accordingly." Again, 
rt The bishop of any diocese, state, or district, may, on the 
invitation of the convention, or standing committee of the 
church, in any state or diocese, where there is not a bishop, 
visit and perform the episcopal offices in that state, or part 
of the state, as the case may be." 

Now, Trinity Church is not the church in this state or 
diocese : it is a church, or one of the churches or congrcga- 
iions of the church; and therefore, if the canon did interfere 
with the usages or charter of Trinity Church, it would not 
on account of the exception we have been considering, be 
liable to any objection. Another question might, it is true, 
in that case arise, how far the ecclesiastical authority could 
establish a different rule from the civil authority of the state, 
in relation to clerical affairs, or the regulation and control 
over their own ministers. It will not be necessary, however, 
here to discuss that abstract question, because I propose now 



380 

to show that the canon does not interfere with the usage or 
charter even of Trinity Church. 

As to usages, I know of none which have been proved, 
with which any interference can be pretended, unless, indeed, 
it should be supposed, on the other side, that they have 
shown, that it is the usage of Trinity Church to call her as- 
sistant ministers for life, and that when they are once called, 
they are to be continued whether they behave well or ill, 
and are to be entirely exempt from the regulation and govern- 
ment to which the ministers of all the other churches are 
subject. Trinity Church, herself, disavows such an usage 
in all its parts; in addition to which, I believe I have al- 
ready shown, that it has no existence except in the brain of 
him who idly seeks for shelter under its protection. 

Mr. Jones, to entitle himself to any privilege under the 
charter of Trinity Church, must show that he is the assist- 
ant rector, or assistant preacher, as he is called by that in- 
strument, for there is no mention in it of assistant ministers : 
they grew out of the subsequent necessities of this church, 
as has been already explained. Mr. Jones, however, can 
have no claim to this station, for it not only was not the one 
to which he was appointed, but if assistant preacher and as- 
sistant minister should even be thought to be the same thing, 
yet, as there can be but one under the charter, and as both 
Dr. Beach and Dr. Hobart were assistant ministers before 
Mr. Jones, I do not very well see on what grounds it is that 
he is to overreach their appointments, and take precedence 
of them: though to be sure, claims, quite as extravagant, 
have been made by this gentleman, and with precisely as 
much propriety and justice. But the assistant rector or 
preacher, under the charter, and an assistant minister, are 
not the same, because, if they were, then Dr. Beach, who 
was the oldest assistant minister, must have been the officer 
mentioned in the charter as assistant preacher. Now, this 
xvas evidently not the case, as Dr. Beach was only appointed 
to that situation, after the same afflicting dispensation of 
Providence had rendered bishop Moore, who was also rector 
of Trinity Church, unable to discharge its duties. And yet, 
so strong has been the disposition in this cause to make every 



331 

thing contribute to Mr. Jones's wrongs, that the opening 
counsel actually adverted to this appointment, as one that 
was made for the expre33 purpose of having a bearing on 
this case; and added it to the list of his grievances. Thus 
an appointment, produced by the visitation of heaven itself, 
and made on the 13th of March, 1811, was made for the 
purpose of injuring Mr. Jones in the present controversy, 
which was not then begun, for it dates its origin from the 
publication of the " Solemn Appeal," which was not pub- 
lished till the beginning of May, following. 

I have now, I believe, gone through all the objections 
which are dire'ctly involved in the question of jurisdiction, 
and unless I have greatly deceived myself, I have shown 
that the bishop and his presbyters had complete cognizance 
of this case. There are, however, some others that remain 
to be noticed, which, though they cannot strictly be classed 
with those which regard the question of jurisdiction, may 
yet be considered as in some degree partaking of the same 
character. They relate to the qualifications of the bishop 
and his presbyters to sit as judges in this business. 

And first, it is said, that bishop Moore was rector of Tri- 
nity Church, and as such formed a part of the vestry : that he 
was, therefore, a party to the proceedings which were insti- 
tuted against Mr. Jones by the vestry, and thereby became 
disqualified to sit as a judge in the case. This objection did 
not occur to Mr. Jones himself, at least it is not incorporated 
in the protest he delivered to the convocation ; nor do I be- 
lieve that he meant to include the bishop among those whom 
he then called " parties concerned."* He shall, however, 
still have the benefit of it. In point of fact then bishop 
Moore, though he was rector, never attended the vestry after 
the appointment of Dr. Beach as his assistant. He it was 
who constantly presided at every meeting of the vestry at 
which the proceedings, in relation to Mr. Jones, were had. 
Bishop Moore, therefore, took no part, whatever, in them : 
he did not concur in them, for he was not present when they 
took place, nor did he advise or direct them. It is not true, 

* See pages 56 and 57 ofSyst. oflnii 



382 

therefore, that lie was a party to the acts of the vestry, unless 
by a mere legal fiction he is to be considered so, from the 
circumstance of his being rector. But the fictions of law are 
only used in furtherance of justice, not for its destruction. 
If, however, he had even acted as rector, it could not have 
disabled him from sitting in the convocation as bishop, be- 
cause he was but the presiding officer ; he was bound by the 
judgment of his presbyters, and his only duty was to ascer- 
tain that, and carry it into effect. There is another and a 
stronger reason why he was bound to preside at that meeting, 
which was its absolute and indispensable necessity; and that 
makes many acts lawful which would otherwise not be so. 
The convocation could not have proceeded to business with- 
out the bishop: no one else could supply his place. If he 
therefore, could not preside, the consequence would be that 
the canon in question could never be applied to any of the 
assistant ministers of Trinity church; not for any of the 
reasons already examined, but because the bishop happened 
also to be rector of that church. Nay, if the vestry should 
present one of their assistant ministers, he could never be 
brought to trial for the same reason; for the presentment 
must be made to the bishop, and the bishop is rector. Thus 
might these ministers forever offend with impunity whilst the 
characters of bishop and rector of Trinity Church were united 
in the same person. When consequences, frought with such 
mischief, are the direct and necessary result of the doctrine 
just noticed, they afford the highest proof of its unsoundness. 
Another objection of the kind last referred to, is, that all 
the presbyters of the diocese were not summoned to the con- 
vocation. Will the gentlemen condescend to point to the 
canon or practice of the church which requires that all the 
presbyters of the church should have been summoned:' 
Can it be pretended that the proceeding against Mr. Jones 
was of graver or higher import than the presentment of a 
clergyman which may end in his degradation, whereas 
this could only end, as far as depended upon the convoca- 
tion, in the separation of Mr. Jones from Trinity Church:' 
And yet in the case of a presentment all the presbyters 
are not summoned. On the contrary only eight are nominal 



3S3 

ed by the bishop, out of whom the person accused may 
choose Jive, or if he neglect or refuse to do this, the bishop 
shall appoint the five. See 2d canon of the episcopal church 
of this state, passed in 1 802. 

Thus, five presbyters are a sufficient tribunal for the trial of 
a clergyman in cases of the highest offences, and yet Mr. 
Jones demands that the whole diocese should be put in requi- 
sition merely to settle the terms upon which he should leave 
one congregation, and be at liberty to go to another. I am 
really at a loss to conceive on what ground he can suppose 
himself entitled to this great attention, unless, indeed, he 
thinks, as I fear he doe3, that his salary in Trinity Church 
is of more importance than the livings, nay, than the charac- 
ter and honour, of all the other clergymen in the diocese. 

Extravagant however as My. Jones's pretensions, on this 
subject are, I shall now shew that enough was done to satis- 
fy any man, who did not mean to find fault with whatever 
was done. Every presbyter in the diocese, who was entitled 
to a seat in the convention, was actually summoned by the 
express directions of the bishop. To this point Mr. Lyeli's 
testimony is explicit.* He says, " that he received direc- 
tions from bishop Moore to summon all the presbyters in the 
diocese, who were entitled to seats in the convention, to attend 
him on the 5th November 1811, at No. 20 Robinson-street^ 
to take into consideration the affairs of the plaintiff and the 
vestry of Trinity Church : he prepared the notices according- 
ly, and took them to bishop Moore, who directed his son 
Clement C. Moore to sign them for him, which he did, and 
handed them to the deponent, who afterwards put them in 
the post office." 

Now, as the number of presbyters that the bishop was to 
convoke under the canon, is no where prescribed, and as 
they are to act as a kind of advisory council to him, it would 
seem to follow, that their number was left to his discretion. 
If, therefore, the bishop, adopting by way of analogy, the 
rule prescribed in the case of presentment, had summoned 
eight presbyters of his own selection, giving Mr. Jones the 
right of objecting to these if he pleased, such a tribunal 
would have been canonically instituted. Instead of doing 
* See page 232. 



38* 

this, however, the whole diocese is opened to him, and then 
in the true spirit of factious murmuring, the complaint really 
is that too much has been done. When the same clerical per- 
sons who would have been convened to deliberate and de- 
cide on the most important affairs of the church, are convok- 
ed to determine Mr. Jones's case, he objects that they are 
not his peers. Although they have a voice in all the con- 
cerns of the church, yet they are not qualified to decide on 
his individual concerns. By what name can this be called, 
but perverseness of the worst kind, arrogance the most insuf- 
ferable ? 

If a different course had been taken, and the few presbyters 
had been summoned that were not entitled to a seat in the 
convention, and who on that account had not been summon- 
ed, the tone of Mr. Jones's complaints wouldliave been alter- 
ed, and we should have been told of the monstrous injustice 
cf enabling persons to decide on so interesting a question to 
him as that of depriving him of his living, who w r ould not 
have been consulted, and could not have voted on the most 
trifling question which related to the affairs of the diocese. 
And yet because the safest, the most prudent, and unexcep- 
tionable rule is adopted, that of submitting Mr. Jones's case 
to precisely the same presbyters that were entitled to delibe- 
rate on and direct all the other affairs of the church, without 
any discrimination or selection, the charge of partiality and 
injustice is as clamorously maintained as if he had really 
been deprived of the common rights and privileges belonging 
to one in hi3 situation, instead of receiving favours to which 
he was not entitled. 

It is made a farther objection to the convocation that some 
of the. members were parties, and that some had expressed 
opinions on the matter submitted to them. 

It might be a sufficient answer both to this and the last ob= 
jection, to say that the right of deciding on the qualifications of 
the presbyters whom the bishop had assembled, belonged to him 
or at most to the convocation itself as judges of its own 
members, and that as they disregarded both, their judgment 
is final. Without relying on this, however, I shall show that 
there is as little in this objection as there was in the last. So 



385 

i'&v as H relates to parties, it is entirely witho ut founda* 
tion. I have already shewn this to be the case in regard to the 
bishop, if the objection is intended to include him ; and with 
respect to the presbyters, there is not even plausible ground 
for it. The parties, and the only parties, were the vestry of 
Trinity Church and Mr. Jones; and to attempt to introduce 
any other, is to revive the old pretence that there was no 
controversy between them, which having already disposed of 
I shall not now renew its consideration. 

But some cf the members had expressed their opinions on 
the question. How far is this meant to extend ? for if there 
were some who had formed impressions, or even opinions un- 
favourable to Mr. Jones, there were others who had been his 
uniform and zealous supporters, and who never thought them- 
selves, and were never thought by Mr. Jones, unqualified, 
on that account, to act as his judges. Their opinions were 
known; but it was not to them that Mr. Jones objected. 
Strong as was his desire for an impartial trial, he would 
not have desired his friends to withdraw from the convocation* 
if their presence and their votes could have been of any a- 
vail. But where is the evidence that the other presbyterG 
had given any opinion in the case ? I shall be told, probably, 
.■of the convocation in October, and that this matter was there 
discussed. Admitting this to be so, what proof does it afford 
that those who were then present were thereby incapacitated 
from again acting. Some few presbyters certainly did meet 
the bishop on this subject in October, who, undoubtedly, at 
that time thought that Mr. Jones would be governed by the 
advice which they might give him, and especially as Dr. 
Beach was present at that meeting, and concurred in what 
was done. This was a proper and prudent step, previous to 
proceeding to extremes. It was soon, however, discovered 
that Mr. Jones was determined to put the discipline of the 
church to the test, and that there was nothing left but to pur- 
sue a strict and regular course of measures with regard to 
him. A formal convocation, therefore, not of the few who 
happened to have met together, as just mentioned, but of 
every presbyter within the diocese who was a member of the 

onvention, was summoned, of which due notice was given 

Bb2 



386 

to Mr. Jones. But if the great body of these presbyters en- 
tertained sentiments unfriendly to Mr. Jones, the fair infer- 
ence is, that it was owing to his own improper behaviour. 
Could he then have asked for a fitter opportunity to vindicate 
his character than Avas thus afforded him ? An injured man, 
conscious of his innocence, would gladly have availed him- 
self of such an occasion to enter into a full and candid ex- 
planation to his brethren, of every thing that could either 
have justified or extenuated his conduct. Instead of this, 
however, he shrinks from every thing like an investigation, 
and puts his whole defence upon his protest He had lately 
discoverd that bishop Moore, whom even in his " Solemn 
Appeal" he calls his beloved diocesan,* had no right to exer- 
cise a single episcopal function, without the concurrence of 
bishop Provoost, under whose protection he now hoped to 
escape from an enquiry which he could not otherwise avoid, 
and which he dared not meet. Have we not the right to con- 
clude that he had no other defence to offer than the one he 
did ? does it not amount to an admission, that if the points on 
which he relied in his protest are untenable, that he is left 
self-convicted ? That they are so, I hope I have sufficient- 
ly established* 

I propose now to show that if the bishop and his presby- 
ters had jurisdiction of this case, their decision is conclusive. 

On this point I shall be very brief. It is a well settled prin- 
ciple of law, that the decisions of a competent tribunal are 
conclusive on the matter decided, and are to be respected ac- 
cordingly by all other tribunals. In England the proceed- 
ings and sentences of the ecclesiastical courts, in all matters, 
in which they haye jurisdiction, are binding upon the com- 
mon law courts, even where the proceeding, though confor- 
mable to t'.e canon law, " is against the reason of the common 
law.]" 

If then the sentence of the bishop and his presbyters, hav- 
ing established their jurisdiction as I have done, would be 

* Seepage 78. Solemn Appeal. 
t 2 Bac. Ah. Title Ecc. Courts, letter E. and cases there 

dtcd. 



387 

conclusive in a court of law, it is equally so here, because 
nothing is submitted but what " could properly be discussed 
in a court of justice in any suit or action"* between the par- 
ties to this arbitration. 

A class of cases in England, analagous to the present, are 
those of visitors of corporations, whose decision is not only 
conclusive, wherever they have jurisdiction, but a court of 
law cannot even enquire into the truth of the facts on which 
it is grounded.f 

Upon what principle, then, can the sentence of the convo- 
cation be impeached? It is the judgment of a tribunal pos- 
sessing full jurisdiction of the case, and we are entitled to all 
the benefit arising from the conclusiveness of its nature, that 
we could have been if we were discussing this case in a re- 
gular suit before your honours as judges, instead of arbitra- 
tors. 

I come now to the last question in this cause : whether the 
compensation allowed by the bishop and presbyters to Mr. 
Jones ought to be altered ? 

This question, it will be recollected, can only arise upon 
the court's establishing the validity of the proceedings against 
Mr. Jones, in which case, it is part of the terms of the sub- 
mission,;); that the compensation which ought to be paid to 
him, shall, notwithstanding, be considered as open for adjust- 
ment and settlement by your award. The vestry of Trinity 
Church do not, however, mean by this to admit that the sum 
fixed on by the convocation should be varied. They do not 
ask for a diminution of that sum, but they are most strenuously 
opposed to its increase, not on account of the mere difference 
of money which they might be obliged to pay Mr. Jones, 
but because it could not be done without prostrating the 
whole plan of church discipline. It is true that in the great 
controversy between the vestry and Mr. Jones, respecting 
the dissolution of the connection between them, their triumph 
over Mr. Jones would be complete by obtaining your confir- 

* See the articles of submission, page I A. 
f Philips v. Bury. 2 Tern. Rep. 34§, 
| See the submission, page 14- 



S88- 

aiation of the proceedings that have taken place ; still, should 
this be accompanied by any additional pecuniary allowance 
to him, I must confess, that in my mind, the proud feelings 
in which I should otherwise indulge, at so just a victory, 
would be greatly allayed. Whilst I rejoiced at the defeat of 
this rebellious contemner of the authority of his church, I 
should mourn over the deep and deadly wounds inflicted on 
its government, I do beseech this court, then, to pause long, 
to consider well r and weigh deliberately all the consequences 
that are likely to flow from their confirming the proceeding? 
against Mr. JGnes with one hand, and remunerating him for 
his disobedience of them with the other. It would be to 
frown upon the offence, and smile on the offender: to punish 
the crime and reward the culprit. 

In considering this part of the cause I am naturally led 
into a view of the nature of Mr. Jones's offence and the cir- 
cumstances under which it was first committed and has since 
been persevered in ; and if it shall appear to have originated in 
personal envy and jealousy, and to have been directed agains: 
the peace, the order and the happiness of the church of which 
he was a minister, I am persuaded that he will appeal in vain 
to this court for a compensation for such labours, 

Mr.- Jones's publication of his " Solemn Appeal" was not a 
hasty act. It was not made in one of those fits of passion 
svhich sometimes betray even a generous mind into error, 
Vie was not allured from the high path of honour and duty by 
any sudden temptation that fastened itself upon him in a weak 
and unguarded moment and made him its unwilling victim. 
To such excesses or palliations of his conduct he does not 
he cannot pretend. The dark design had long been conceal- 
ed in his bosom. For years had he been brooding over his 
imaginary wrongs, and least memory should be unfaithful to 
her trust, and malignity loose by the softening hand of time, 
something of its venom, written records were made of parti- 
cular occurrences, whilst the feelings of the moment were 
most likely to imprint on them a false character, and they 
are preserved and resorted to, to cherish and reanimate the 
enmity which had given them birth. 



After Mr. Jones liad prepared his pamphlet for the press, 
the manuscript was circulated by him among certain persons 
with whom he probably thought it would be most likely to 
have its desired effect ; but several even of them disapproved 
of its publication. As soon, however, as he had, by a suffi- 
cient secret circulation, paved the way for its appearance be- 
fore the public, he determined, against the advice, and even 
entreaty of some of his best friends, to do an act fraught with 
more mischief than a whole life of penitence could atone for, 
When, on one occasion in particular, he was cautioned against 
this act, as one that would be alike injurious to the church 
and himself, his reply was, I have weighed well the conse- 
quences, and am ready to meet them. He had time then to re- 
flect, to consult, to deliberate. He did so, and rejecting at 
once the sober dictates of his own judgment, the admonitions 
of conscience, and the warning voice of his friends, he 
sought only (he gratification of his vindictive passions. 

What was the natural tendency of this publication ? Under 
the pretence of a " Solemn Appeal to the church" it was an 
attack upon the peace, prosperity and unity which was well 
calculated to prostrate the whole in the dust. That Zion 
which he found in tranquillity, he attempted to convert into 
disorder and schism. The seeds of discord were sown where 
once grew nought but the christian virtues. Strifes and dis- 
tentions, and all the angry passions connected with them, 
were ripening into active life and motion. They were en- 
tering into the retirement of domestic life, and tearing asun= 
der the dearest ties of human happiness. Children were ar- 
raying themselves against their parents, and even husbands 
and wives were becoming opposing partizans. Thus was not 
only the peace and welfare of the church assailed, her disci- 
pline defied and contemned, but all the tender charities of 
life were rudely intruded upon by this inflammatory publica- 
tion. He whose business it was to teach peace on earth and 
good will to mankind, was now employed in creating dissen- 
tions in his congregation, defaming his associate ministers, 
destroying their usefulness, and bringing a stain upon religion 
itself by the animosities he was thus engendering among 
its professors. Under these circumstances the vestry, with 



S90 

a firmness as honorable to themselves, as it has been useful to 
the church, determined to stop the farther spread of these 
evils, by removing from among them, him who was their cause, 
No sooner was this effected than the storm which prejudice 
and misrepresentation had raised, and which began to threat- 
en destruction to the best hopes of the sincere christian was 
dispelled, and the sunshine of order, affection and harmony 
again smiles upon our altars. 

If Mr. Jones has not, therefore, ruined the church, brought 
disgrace on its ministers, and made religion a scoff, it is not 
because he has not tried a bold experiment for the purpose : 
but happily because it failed. And now, when these mighty 
mischiefs have been averted, when the evils which he was 
striving to heap on others, recoil on himself, we are told 
that a family, whom I believe to be both innocent and inter- 
esting, are to partake in the calamitous consequences that 
await his misdeeds. You are, therefore, required to reward 
him in proportion as the desolating ruin he meditated against 
others, has been prevented, and has fallen upon himself, and 
those most closely connected with him. Yes, already has 
the voice of impassioned eloquence described to you the mi- 
series to which this man's unfortunate family will be reduced, 
if you do not restore him to a situation he has disgraced, or 
at least increase the compensation that has been allowed 
him ; and I doubt not the appeal will be reiterated in tones 
calculated to wring from your hearts a bounty which your 
understandings must refuse. If want and suffering are to be 
the portion of those whom it was his duty to guard from both, 
as far at least as depeuded upon himself, upon whom ought 
the blame to fall? If a sense of duty could not restrain him 
from the rash and wicked course he had determined to pur- 
sue, ought not the feelings of a husband and a father to have 
forbid it? But, alas, nothing could have this effect. He 
had resolved upon the act, and had weighed all its cense- 
quences. Be them then upon his head: and if others, whose 
destinies are inseparably connected with his own, are made 
his fellow victims, however we may lament their fate, we 
should not cease to condemn him who is its cause. 



391 

Was there any necessity for the publication in question ? 
The defenders of Mr. Jones, who assembled at a tavern to 
regulate the affairs of the church, many of whom, I fear, 
were more at home there than in the temples of their maker, 
tell us that the vindication of his own character and the 
good of the church justified his " Appeal." Whether the 
fumes of the place in which they met, had, by the time they 
got to this part of their resolutions, made them doubt the 
prudence of assigning their reasons for this opinion, as they 
had most lavishly done before for others, I know not : per- 
haps after the example of a certain kind of knights, who 
think " discretion is the better part of valour," they thought 
silence the better part of wisdom. If so, it is a pity the 
idea had not occurred when they were so profoundly em- 
ployed in discussing the illegality of the proceedings of the 
convocation, as I presume but very few of them were capa- 
ble of forming an opinion on that point, and to those who 
were, a little more reflection and examination would proba- 
bly not have been amiss. Be this, however, as it may, how 
Mr. Jones's character was to be vindicated by the public 
slanders of others, or how the good of the church was to be 
promoted by schism, and all the other evils I have adverted 
to, can, I believe, only be imagined by Mr. Jones's tavern 
associates, 

If Mr. Jones had any serious complaints against his asso- 
ciate ministers, the public was not the tribunal before whom 
they were to be made. The church has provided ample 
means for the redress of every wrong which Mr. Jones was 
pleased to fancy himself suffering under. If then, they ex- 
isted, why were not measures taken to bring them before 
those to whom their cognizance belonged? Why did he not 
ask the friendly interposition of the vestry, or that of the 
bishop, for the purpose of bringing about, in the very first 
instance, an accommodation of the matters in which he felt 
himself aggrieved? Or, if he thought the conduct of which 
he complained, too injurious to him to deserve treatment so 
gentle, why did he not make a regular presentment of Dr. 
Hobart to the bishop? According to the canon on this sub- 



332 

ject,* a clergyman maybe presented for any misbehaviour ; 
a, term, broad enough, surely to cover the charges which 
Mr. Jones has preferred against Dr. Hobart; and least it 
should be supposed, as it seems to have been intimated, that 
■the sentence, upon conviction in such a case, is necessarily 
degradation, and that Mr. Jones, in the spirit of forbearance 
and clemency, would not. resort to this mode of proceeding, 
on account of the severity of the punishment, I beg leave to 
refer to the canonf which prescribes the sentence, and ac- 
cording to which it may be " admonition, suspension, or de- 
gradation from the ministry, or excommunication." 

But we have been told that Mr. Jones could not, alone, 
have made a presentment. This is true, because the wis- 
dom of the church has not left so important a proceeding in 
the power of a single individual, least it might be made the 
instrument of personal malice or vengeance. A presentment 
<san, therefore, only be made " by the convention, by the 
vestry of the parish to which a clergyman belongs, or by 
three or more presbyters of the church.''^ Did Mr. Jones 
<ever apply to the convention, or to the vestry, to assist him 
in presenting Dr. Hobart? AVas his publication necessary 
lor that purpose? But, supposing that neither the conven- 
tion nor the vestry would have interfered, even if they had 
been asked, could not Mr. Jones, in the whole diocese, find 
two clergymen to join with him in a presentment? The 
opening counsel told us frankly that he could not: that the 
experiment had been faithfully made, and that Dr. Richard 
C Moore alone could be found possessed of sufficient inde- 
pendence to encounter the displeasure of Trinity Church. 
He, and he only volunteered his aid, and for this act 
4)f disinterested virtue, as my learned friend called it, he 
received from him a highly wrought panegeric; and yet in a 

* 1 Canon of the Episcopal Church of this state, passed in 
1802. 

f 3d Canon of the Episcopal Church of this state, passed in 
1802. 

f 1 Cation of 1802, 



393 

subsequent part of his argument, he thought fit to represent 
this very gentleman as having since fallen from his high 
estate, and sunk all his manly independence, by becoming a 
pensioner, and feeding on the bounty of the very vestry of 
whose injustice to Mr. Jones, he had before been so sensi- 
ble. 

If then, but a single clergyman could be found to asso- 
ciate himself with Mr. Jones in a presentment, does it not 
of itself afford the highest evidence that he himself was the 
aggressor; and that, instead of appearing in the character of 
an accuser, he might be thankful that he was not himself ac- 
cused ? 

The publication then stands stripped of every justifiable 
motive, for if he was injured, the government of his church 
had provided him the means of redress, to which alone he 
ought to have resorted. But this was not Mr. Jones's object : 
he well knew that, by a regular course of proceeding, nothing 
could be effected to the disadvantage of Dr. Hobart, and, 
therefore, his ruin was to be accomplished by other measures. 
The period for electing an assistant bishop was approaching, 
and the mean jealousy of Mr. Jones could not brook the ele- 
vation of Dr. Hobart to that station. " This young man,"* 
said he, " is aiming at the top of the ladder, and we must 
do what we can to pull him down. 1 ' In connection with this, 
Mr. Feltus, one of Mr. Jones's bosom friends, threatens,! 
that if Dr. Hobart did not withdraw all pretensions to this 
office, he would be overwhelmed with a " black list of crimi- 
nal charges," which were already in the press, and would be 
published, if he did not " shrink from the contest." Here it 
is that Dr. Hobart's crime stands confessed : " the very head 
and front of his offending hath this extent, no more," that he 
dared to allow his friends to think of promoting him to tlie 
episcopacy. Attempt not to mount that ladder; disclaim the 
mark of honour and respect which is about to be conferred 
upon you, and the " Solemn Appeal" will never appear ; but 
if you cast one look towards the elevation that only waits 

* See Mr. Swords' s testimony, p. 219. 
t See letter to vestry, p. 94. 
c c 2 



tor your conseut, the instrument of your ruin is- made ready, 
and will burst upon you when you are unprepared for the 
shock, and when your ruin will be certain. Can these be 
the sentiments of christian ministers? Can they be govern- 
ed by such motives? Alas, the answer is before us; they 
have given it themselves. 

But, it is insisted, that as Mr, Jones thought Dr. Hobart 
utterly unqualified for the office of assistant bishop, it was a 
conscientious duty to disclose his opinion to those who were 
to decide on this question. Allowing this to be so, still it 
would not prove the necessity of writing, much less of pub- 
lishing a book. But, if conscience required him to guard 
the convention against an improper choice, it would equally 
impose upon him the necessity of believing in the fitness of 
the candidate whom he himself proposed. I want no better 
test of Mr. Jones's sincerity than this;, for if I can show, 
that on this point he is not only inconsistent with himself, 
but is involved in direct falsehood and hypocrisy, and I am 
aware of the strength of the words which I use, then I think 
that even those who have hitherto given credit to the honesty 
of his intentions, will at least pause and reflect. 

In his £ Solemn Appeal"* he very explicitly tells us who 
lie thinks ought to be chosen assistant bishop. " The first 
person," says he, " who naturally and immediately presented 
himself, for the appointment, to the mind of every dispas- 
sionate member of the church, was Dr. Beach. It was his 
right, from his years, from his standing in the church, from 
his respectability of character. Had matters been left to 
take their natural course, not a dissenting voice would have 
been heard." Now, if Mr. Jones really thought that Dr. 
Beach had these pre-eminent claims to this office, in short, 
ihat it was his right, and that every dispassionate member of 
the church thought so, and looked to him as the first person 
entitled to the appointment, how can he reconcile this 
opinion with his making a visit to Mr. Wilkins, to induce 
him to become a candidate for this very office? How could 
he entertain a wish that Mr. Wilkins should interfere with; 

* Seepage 79, 



■S95 

ihe very man, against whom there ought not to have been & 
dissenting voice ? And, yet Mr. Jones did this: nay more, 
when he found that Mr. Wilkins would not listen to his pro- 
position, he vented his spleen against Dr. Hobart, and insi- 
diously attempted to enlist Mr. Wilkins's pride and resent- 
ment, by telling him that it was Dr. Hobart who prevented 
his getting St. John's Church.* It would require some inge- 
nuity to make this conduct comport with Mr. Jones's decla- 
ration in favour of Dr„ Beach. But, I do not stop here. 
Mr. Prenticef informs us, that in the summer or autumn of 
1808, Mr. Jones paid him a visit, and that during some of 
the conversations which then took place between them, Mr. 
Jones said, that " if bishop Moore should drop off within a 
lew years, Dr» Beach would undoubtedly, or probably, come 
forward with his claims to become bishop, but that he was 
wholly unfit for the office, and ought not to be elected; and 
Mr. Jones added observations very disrespectful to Dr. 
Beach, at the same time or times." Among the disrespect- 
ful observations that were so used, and which Mr. Prentice 
afterwards mentioned on the examination of Mr* Jones's 
counsel, were Dr. Beach's " disposition to indolence, that 
he would be led by the nose by Dr. Hobart and Mr. Lyeli, 
and that his want of talent in writing was not suited for a 
bishop. 53 Thus, about two years and a half before the publi- 
cation of Mr. Jones's " Appeal," he thought Dr. Beach 
wholly unfit for the episcopal office, one who ought not to be 
elected; who had neither industry nor talents, and was be- 
sides, mean enough to yield himself, with the most servile 
submission, to the government of others. Why, in the 
mean time, he had altered his opinion, Mr. Jones has not 
seen fit to disclose, nor is it easy to conjecture, unless, in- 
deed, he imagined, that in case of Dr. Beach's promotion, 
lie should succeed to the honourable employment he had as- 
signed to Dr. Hobart and Mr. Lyell. When I speak of Dr„ 
Beach in this controversy, the personal respect I feel for 
him makes me do it with an aching heart, for, in my soul, I 
4o believe that he has been cruelly abused and deceived by 

# See Mr. Wilkins's evidence, p. 239„ 
f Sec his evidence, p. 227, 



396 

the busy influence of false friends, or he would never have 
taken the part in it he has done : he would never have dis- 
carded from his confidence and affections, him, who had 
grown up in both, and who highly deserved them, for one 
who would elevate him to a mitre, or crush him with dis- 
grace, as best suited his own malignant designs. 

I beseech you to ponder on the conduct of Mr. Jones, 
which I have just developed, to compare his application to 
Mr. Wilkins, and more especially his conversation with Mr. 
Prentice, with the sentiments expressed in the " Solemn 
Appeal," in favour of Dr. Beach, and to say whether I have 
not made out my charge against him, on this subject, harsh 
as it might seem to be ? I ask whether he stands before you 
as a man acting from honest motives ? 

As I think that it must be apparent that Mr. Jones's object 
was not to write Dr. Beach into favour, but to write Dr. Ho- 
bart into disrepute, that he had no wish to make the former 
bishop, provided the latter was excluded from that office, let 
us, for a moment, enquire into the causes that had produced 
this unrelenting opposition to Dr. Hobart, and if I mistake 
not, they will be traced to some of the worst passions of the 
liuman heart. 

The very first page of Mr. Jones's " Appeal" discovers, 
that the secret springs of his whole conduct were envy and 
jealousy of Dr. Hobart. He complains, in terms not to be 
misunderstood, that the young men who had been studying 
for the ministry, were more attached to Dr. Hobart than 
himself, and that measures had been taken by the former to 
alienate their affections from him ; and yet, every one of 
those alluded to, expressly declare,* that whilst Dr. Hobart's 
uniform language and behaviour, relative to Mr. Jones, was 
friendly and respectful, his, on the contrary, was disrespect- 
ful and even slanderous towards Dr. Hobart, to such a de- 
gree, as to leave them no doubt he was the object of Mr. 
Jones's envy, and on that account alone, they broke off 
their intercourse with him. Mr. Clarkj testifies, that before 

* See Letter to the Vestry, p. 6 to 13, and Mr, Wyatfs air 
dence, p. 231. 
t See his evidence, p. 203. 



397 

Mr. Jones had been in New- York a year, he plainly dis- 
covered, from his conversation, " that there was a jealousy 
on his part respecting Dr. Hobart." The conduct of Mr. 
Jones, in this respect, had, as early as 1808, attracted the 
notice of the bishop, who told Mr. Harris* " that he was 
afraid that Mr. Jones was influenced by improper motives, 
that he was envious of Dr. Hobart, and wished to prevent 
his rising in the church, but that it would be vain." With 
this predominating temper, on the part of Mr. Jones, he 
watches the footsteps of Dr. Hobart, weighs with critical 
nicety the import of every expression, and finds out offences 
and injuries where none were meant or thought of. 

This controversy, in regard to time, divides itself into 
three periods. The first from Mr. Jones's settlement here, 
till the convention in 1808; the second, from that time till 
the publication of the "Appeal;" and the third, from the pub- 
lication to the proceedings before the bishop and his presby- 
ters. During the first period, the complaints of Mr. Jones 
relate to what passed in reference to Gen. Hamilton's funeral, 
and what occurred at the funeral of Mr. Walton. I will not 
now stop to oppose Dr. Hobart's statement of both these 
transactions to Mr. Jones's: it is enough to say, that in all 
their material circumstances they are unlike. But whatever 
were their differences on those occasions, Mr. Jones himself 
admits that they were settled, and that they were reconciled; 
and " Mr. Hobart,"f says he, " and myself, were on the same 
friendly footing as before : only, to be sure, I could not help 
•viewing him with a little distrust." Reconciled to his friend, 
and yet distrusts him! Yes, here you have a picture of the 
man, taken from life, and drawn by himself. While he prof- 
fered the hand of restored friendship, and his tongue renewed 
his friendly professions, jealousy and envj r were rankling in 
his heart, and preying on his very vitals. He was true to 
himself ; he did distrust, he pursued Dr. Hobart with watch- 
ful suspicion, and when he pretended to be on the same 
friendly footing with him as before, he was calumniating him 

* See his evidence, p. 141. 
f Solemn Appeal, p. 9, 



338 

before the young students of divinity, lie was representing 
him to Mr* Prentice,* and doubtless to others, as " a hasty, 
ambitious, and ill-bred man, unworthy of the ministerial of- 
fice, and undeserving of the confidence of the other clergy 
of the same connection." When Dr. Hobart, who is inca- 
pable of any thing like insincerity or hypocrisy, whose frank 
and manly nature is marked in every action of his life, and 
who emphatically carries his heart in his hand, was after- 
wards apprized, in some measure, of the insincerity and du- 
plicity that Mr. Jones was practising towards him, and re- 
proached him with it, what is his answer ? My tongue faul- 
ters, and my heart dies away, as I repeat the chilling, freez- 
ing words. " To this I answered," says he, " that I acted 
according to my natural constitution." Thus, whilst Dr. 
Hobart, in the generous sincerity of his soul, had forgotten 
every thing of an angry nature that had ever passed between 
them, while he was treating Mr. Jones with unreserved 
friendship, and was uniformly speaking of him in terms of 
friendly regard and respect, Mr. Jones was secretly sapping 
the foundation of a fame, at whose growth his jealous soul 
sickened: he was smiling in the very face of him at whose 
heart he was aiming a concealed stiletto, and, when re* 
proacked with his baseness and perfidy, coolly answers, I 
do but act according to my natural constitution. From all in- 
tercourse with such a constitution, may heaven, in its mercy, 
for ever defend me! 

Until the meeting of the convention in 1808, Dr. Hobart 
had treated and spoken of Mr. Jones as a friend : this ap- 
pears from the whole course of the testimony, and yet, as 
has been already shown, Mr. Jones, though he preserved the 
appearance of friendship on his part, was pursuing a system 
of hostility towards Dr. Hobart, that had in view nothing 
short of his ruin. And, notwithstanding all this, Mr. Jones 
is pleased to represent himself as the victim of Dr. Hobart's 
intolerance. A short time before the convention of 1808 met, 
Mr. Jones's views had been unfolded to so many, that they 
at length were disclosed to Dr. Hobart. And how did he 

* See his evidence y p. 227. 



39£ 

receive the intelligence ? Did it rouse his anger, did it kin- 
dle his resentment, did he determine on vengeance ? No : 
the feelings of injured friendship mingled themselves with 
the forgiveness of the christian spirit. One of the witness- 
es,* who had mentioned to Dr. Hobart Mr. Jones's conduct 
towards him, tells us, that when he received the information, 
" he appeared to be very much dejected and distressed, and 
observed, that he could say of himself as the Psalmist had 
said of himself, " Oh that I had wings like a dove, then 1 
could fly away and be at rest." 

Dr. Hobart had for some time been secretary of the state 
convention, and this office it seems had excited the ambi 
tion of Mr. Jones, who was desirous of procuring it for 
himself, or, at all events, of removing Dr. Hobart from it. 
As soon as Dr. Hobart heard of this design, he went to Dr. 
Harris to ascertain its truth, and with the intention, if it was 
so, of resigning the office in favour of Mr. Jones, as he told 
Mr. Bulkeley, in the course of the conversation just referred 
to, he would do. Dr. Harris accordingly testifies,! that just 
before the meeting of the convention of 1808, Dr. Hobart 
told him that he understood there was a plan formed to turn 
him out of the office of secretary, " and that if there was, 
and he was informed of it, he would resign; to which depo- 
nent replied, that he knew nothing of any such plan, but 
that he would make enquiry; and that he did, in conse- 
quence, speak to the plaintiff on the subject, who said that 
he would vote as he thought proper, but that he had not, 
and would not speak to any other to influence their vote,'* 
which he afterwards communicated to Dr. Hobart. How na- 
turally Dr. Harris went to Mr. Jones to make the promised 
enquiry, for, if any such plan was in operation, he well 
knew by whom it was engendered. Is Mr. Jones's answer* 
however, either ingenuous" or true ? Whether he did, after 
that, speak to any others to influence their votes, or not, 
does not appear; but that he had done so before, is proved, 
for Mr. Prentice says, that in the course of the conversations^ 

# See the rev. Mr. Bulkel&fs evidence, p. 230, 
t See his evidence, p. 1 42, 



400 

before mentioned, " Mr. Jones proposed lliat Dr. Hbbar! 
should be removed from, or left out of the office of secretary 
of the state convention, and requested the deponent, in case 
he approved of the measure, to prepare the mind of the rev. 
John Reed, then of Catskill, for it. And this deponent fur- 
ther saith, that he believes the observations before alluded 
to, made by Mr. Jones, unfriendly to Dr. Hobart's charac- 
ter, were intended, among other things, to induce the depo- 
nent to join in the measure of turning or leaving Dr. Hobart 
out of the said office of secretary." Thus much then we 
know, that Mr. Jones did, notwithstanding his declaration 
to the contrary to Dr. Harris, attempt to influence one vote 
at least, and to induce the same gentleman to influence ano- 
ther against Dr. Hobart. How much farther Mr- Jones ex- 
tended his electioneering project, does not appear from the 
evidence in the cause ; but the fair conclusion, from what 
does appear, is, that he found it impracticable to succeed, 
and therefore gave it up ; contenting himself with showing 
his own good will towards Dr. Hobart, by voting alone, or 
with but one other, against him on that occasion. 

From this time to the publication of the " Appeal," Mr. 
Jones continued to manifest his watchful jealousy of Dr. 
Hobart: he draws him into conversation, and then writes 
down, from time to time, his own account of what passed 
between them, in a manner best suited to his own views and 
state of mind ; and we accordingly see advice converted into 
dictation, and argument into insolence. Notwithstanding 
the unequivocal evidences of Mr. Jones's unfriendly disposi- 
tion towards him, which Dr. Hobart possessed in the autumn 
of 1803, he endeavoured to suppress them, and conceal them, 
as it were, from himself, for he did not even mention them 
to a gentleman, with whom he was on the most intimate and 
confidential terms, till the spring of 1809, when Mr. Berrian 
says, he told him of some particulars of Mr. Jones's un- 
friendly conduct, and spoke of it with regret. So much did 
this subject press upon Dr. Hobart's spirits, that Mr. Bulke- 
ley informs us, that in the winter of 1809, he expressed to 
him a wish to retire, in order to avoid the collisions and dif- 
ficulties which he foresaw would take place with Mr. Jones- 



401 

Dr. Harris also testifies, that " Dr. HoJbart had, in con versa- 
tions at different times with the deponent, one, not long af- 
ter the convention of 1810, and the other, he thinks, pre- 
vious to that time, told the deponent, that it was his wish 
to retire from the city, on account of the differences which 
he knew would arise with the plaintiff." Dr. Bowden, in 
his testimony, likewise states, " that he knows, that some 
time after bishop Hobart had heard of the unfriendly disposi- 
tions of the plaintiff towards him, he had it in contemplation 
to remove to New-Jersey, and the deponent persuaded him 
from it, and that one of the leading motives to such a step, 
was the uneasiness in the church, which grew out of the 
plaintiff's opposition to him." Thus you have before you a 
picture of Dr. Hobart's ambition, and intolerance. When he 
is told that Mr. Jones is endeavouring to supplant him in the 
office of secretary, he immediately informs his friend, that 
if any such design was entertained, he was ready to resign, 
and the convention might put him in his place. When he 
found, however, that nothing would soothe or pacify the dis- 
contented temper of this man, he determined to retire from 
the city, to avoid the evils which his prophetic spirit fore- 
saw ; and he was only forced from this resolution, by the en- 
treaties of a valued friend, to whom the church owes many 
obligations, which this act greatly increased. Had Dr. Ho- 
bart been the ambitious, unprincipled, and intolerant cha- 
racter that Mr. Jones has represented him, would he have 
voluntarily withdrawn from an honour, which the convention 
had for years conferred upon him, to make way for Mr. Jones 
himself? Would he, in order to avoid collisions and difficul- 
ties with Mr. Jones, have resolved to retire from the city, 
and even the diocese, and leave him to pursue in triumph 
his own schemes? Would he, whom Mr. Jones accuses of 
having for years pursued a system of self-exaltation, have 
acted thus: nay more, when he had at length within his 
reach the long wished for object of all his aspiring hopes, 
when the mitre was about to be placed upon his head, would 
he have* had a severe conflict in his own mind before he con* 

* See Dr. BowdeiCs evidence, p* 242* 
Dd2 



402 

sented to accept it! Ambition should be made of sterner 
stuff. 

Since the publication of the Appeal, what has been the 
conduct of bishop Hobart in relation to Mr. Jones ? Not a 
rude, not an angry word has ever escaped his lips. After the 
unceasing pains with which his most unreserved and confi- 
dential communications have been examined into, not a 
hasty or unguarded expression has been found. He has pas- 
sed through the fiery ordeal, which was prepared to consume 
him, unhurt : he has realized the expectations of his friends^ 
and confounded the hopes of his enemies. In all the conver- 
sations which he has had with different individuals in relation 
to Mr. Jones's Appeal, he has constantly disclaimed all per- 
sonal hostility towards him, and treated the attack upon him- 
self as lost and sunk in the offence committed against the 
peace, honour and discipline of the church ; # upon this high 
and honourable ground he took his stand, and he has never, 
for an instant, departed from it. When he was applied to, to 
use his endeavours to stop the proceedings of Trinity Church 
against Mr. Jones, and is urged to it by the assurance that 
the measure would be popular, how noble is his reply, how 
strongly does it mark his sense of duty, and how far does it 
place him above the mean and selfish passions by which his 
adversaries represent him to be governed. I know it would 
be popular, but I want not that popularity which can be gain- 
ed only by a sacrifice of duty. I have recently come under 
the most solemn obligations to defend the interests of the 
church : upon these Mr. Jones has made a serious attack, and 
I will not interpose between him, and the punishment that 
ought to await his conduct. So far as respects myself person- 
ally, I have naught to say, my own injuries I can, and do for- 
give, but hi3 offence against the church I have neither the 
power nor the inclination to remit. Is not this the language 
of a christian acting under a just view of what was due from 
himself individually, and the public station he filled ? The 
forgiveness of injuries is one of the precepts of our religion, 

* See the evidence of ike plaintij/Ts own witnesses) Dr. Har- 
ris, Mr, Wm. Irving, and Dr. Wm. Hamersley, on this point. 



403 

and bishop Hobart most scrupulously obeyed it What 
ever was offensive or injurious to himself he forgave, but he 
would not commute his duty for a little short lived popula- 
rity. And though he forgave Mr. Jones, it could not be ex- 
pected that he could again renew the same friendly and con- 
fidential intercourse that had once existed between them 
He could not be required to take again to his bosom the viper 
that had well nigh stung him to death. No, he might cast 
him off and say, depart in peace, I forgive you for what is 
past; but you shall never return to the confidence you have 
abused, to the friendship you have betrayed. The heart 
that has been once deceived is slow to trust again ; but in 
euch a case to trust without the slightest acknowledgment of 
error, without one penitent sigh, one promise of amendment, 
would be worse than madness. Not only was nothing of this 
kind offered, but the very apology that was suggested by Mi*. 
Jones's friend,* that his pamphlet would be considered a mere 
electioneering tricky shewed his utter unfitness ever again to 
minister in holy things. What is an electioneering trick but 
a combination of every thing that meanness, falsehood and 
artifice can contrive, to deceive and impose upon those whom 
it is to affect. The true character of this publication is thus 
stamped upon it, by the hand of a friend who knew its author 
well. And for this electioneering trick upon the convention 
of this state, in the choice of a most important church officer, 
you are called upon to reward Mr. Jones by increasing the 
compensation that has been allowed him. 

Mr. Jones's conduct and his motives are now before you. 
It is for you to examine and appreciate them. He has talk- 
ed long and loudly of the persecutions with which he has 
been beset, and even honest minds have been poisoned with 
the belief of their truth. The delusion, however, cannot be 
of much longer continuance. The broad lights that this 
trial have thrown upon a subject much misunderstood, and 
more misrepresented, will dispel every doubt that yet rests 
upon it. Can you say that he has made out a meritorious 
ease, or one, indeed, at all entitled to your favour ? Has be- 

* See Dr. Harris's evidence-, 



•iOi 

not, on the contrary, shewn himself unworthy of it, and that 
if he had been dismissed without any pecuniary allowance 
whatever, justice would have been satisfied ? But let me ask, 
how can you with any degree of self consistency increase the 
compensation that has been allowed ? For, if you establish 
the validity of the proceedings and sentence against Mr. 
Jones, and which you must do before you can touch the ques- 
tion of compensation, it must be because both were regular. 
Now if they were, was it not Mr. Jones's duty to submit to 
them ? He could no more object to the compensation, than to 
any other part of the proceedings ; nor in fact did he ever 
put his refusal to obey them on the ground of the compensa- 
tion's being too small. How can this court be better judges 
on this subject than the bishop and his presbyters were ? By 
what rule can they undertake to settle the amount that ought 
to be paid, differently from what has been done ? It is enough 
for you that the sum has been fixed by those who had a 
right to fix it, and who were the most competent to determine 
what was fair and reasonable in this respect. By confirming 
the sentence you clearly determine that Mr. Jones was bound 
to obey it, and as he refused to do this, surely you will not 
reward him for his disobedience ; you will not pay him for a 
deliberate breach of his duty. 

This is a cause, whose importance is not confined to Trinity 
Church ; it is one in which every religious denomination has 
an interest. The preservation of ecclesiastical government, 
and its coercive powers, are essential to the existence of eve- 
ry church, and must, therefore, be dear to the heart of every 
christian. Suffer them not then, I entreat you, to be pulled 
down, lest the pillars of the temple should also tumble with 
them into ruin. You cannot more effectually prevent this 
than by frowning on every attempt to appeal from the eccle- 
siastical to the civil tribunals. If, however, you increase 
the compensation in this case, you set an example of the 
most dangerous kind. It will induce the turbulent and dis- 
contented to venture on similar experiments, in the hope of 
similar success. But I cannot prevail upon myself to think 
that this court will sit here to settle the price that shall be 
paid to Mr. Jones for contemning the lawful authority of his 



£05 

church, to iix the premium that shall be awarded for the vio- 
lation of the most sacred duties and solemn vows. I will ra- 
ther indulge the belief that we shall receive at your hands 
an entire and unqualified confirmation of the proceedings and 
sentence in this case, and that you will thus vindicate the 
honour of the church, preserve her peace, and establish her 
discipline* 



Mr. Emsiet. 

In a case where warm feelings are excited, and delicate du- 
ties to be performed, the advocate but little knows himself, who 
thinks he knows the degree of moderation and forbearance 
with which his argument will be conducted. If frequent 
experience had not already taught me this truth, I should cer- 
tainly have learned it from what has occurred in this cause* 
Every counsel that has preceded me, has commenced by profess- 
ing to abstain from all invective and personal abuse; but my 
adversaries, while they accuse my learned associate of de- 
parting from that profession, have abundantly exercised the 
same privilege themselves. For my own part, I am utterly 
unable to say what line of conduct I shall in this respect pur- 
sue ; particularly as, at this moment, burning provocation is 
working on my fixed and predetermined resolutions. I know, 
indeed, the great outlines of my cause, I know its members 
and leading features, I am familiar with its minutiae and details; 
but I can promise nothing for the warmth or glow of colour- 
ing, which the enthusiasm of the moment, and the present 
sense of my client's wrongs may induce me to employ in 
presenting them to your view. 

Indeed, before the argument of this cause, I had established 
with myself certain rules of conduct, to which (notwithstand- 
ing all that I have heard) I shall still endeavour to adhere : 
I had resolved that whatever my duty should oblige me to urge 
plainly, should be urged decently — that I should keep in 
mind tue Bacred and elevated station held by one of the ac- 
uta) parties to this cause— that I should endeavour to treat 



&0& 

him with respect as one of the heads of the church, in the 
principles, and under the discipline of which I have been 
Brought up ;— and that I should, therefore, cautiously refrain 
from discussing the merits of the controversy between him 
and my client, so far as they can be separated from the mat- 
ters submitted to the present arbitration. If hereafter the 
perusal of the evidence and documents in this cause, as ap- 
plied to the allegations contained in Mr. Jones's " Solemn 
Appeal" should establish an opinion unfavourable to bishop 
Hobart, and injurious to his usefulness in society, I was de- 
sirous that it should arise only from calm and dispassionate 
reflection in the closet, and that no heated or inconsiderate 
expression of mine should contribute to produce that effect. 
There was also another decisive reason for forming that re- 
solution, I considered myself bound to it by a compact which 
my adversaries, however, have on their parts totally set at 
naught. I imagined we entered into this arbitration under a 
mutual stipulation, that the truth or falsehood of the facts 
alledged by Mr. Jones, should not be brought into discussion. 
— That opinion was founded on the following facts, disclosed 
in the evidence. A number of the most respectable episco- 
palians of New- York (who nevertheless could not escape the 
animadversions and asperity of the opposite-counsel; because, 
not being permitted to meet in a church, and being too-nu- 
merous for any private room, they assembled, as it is fastidi- 
ously said, in a tavern,) convened at the mechanic-hall, and 
appointed a committee to confer with a committee of the ves- 
try of Trinity Church on the best mode of terminating the 
disputes that had arisen in their religious communion. The 
committee oT episcopalians made propositions which are to be 
found in the following extracts from the evidence, page 1 79 
380. 

" We fcoM that a priest is cot responsible to his congregation 
or to his bishop, for any part of his extra or unofficial conduct, 
which his civil rights and moral duties authorize. 

That he has a civil and moral right to publish truths unfa- 
vourable to any active enemy, in order to diminish his power 



407 

or opportunity of doing injuries, and in order also to mani- 
fest the propriety of his own conduct relative to such an 
enemy. 

That every free citizen, who is interested in the election 
of an officer, civil or ecclesiastical, has a civil and a moral 
right to publish truth, calculated to show that this or that 
candidate is or is not qualified for the office. 

If those propositions be true, it appears to us that the only 
question to be decided is, whether what Mr. Jones had pub-, 
lished previous to the sentence against him, to wit, his pam- 
phlet called a " Solemn Appeal to the Church," was true or 
false. 

To decide this question, we propose to the vestry. 

1st. That bishop Hobart shall bring an action for a libel 
or for slander against Mr. Jones. 

2d. That Mr. Jones shall plead that the whole is true. 

3d. That if the court and jury should acquit Mr. Jones he 
shall be replaced in statu quo. 

4th. That if the court and jury should find him guilty, then 
those whom we represent shall cease to support him, and 
Mr Jones shall acquiesce in the sentence. 

5th. That until the final decision of the suit so to be in 
stituted a sum of money equal to Mr. Jones's former compcn 
sation shall be regularly paid to him by the vestry. 

To this the committee of the vestry replied, 

Gentlemen, 

The committee of the vestry of Trinity Church have re- 
flected upon what passed at their conference with you last 
evening, and it does nOt appear to them that the written pro- 
position you made them would be calculated, if accepted, 
to allay, but would rather tend to increase the irritation? 
which at present unfortunately exist, and for this and other 
reasons they decline them ; but being truly and sincerely de 
sirous to agree upon any measure which may afford a pros- 
pect of healing divisions, without violating their own duty 
or self-respect, they propose to you, to submit to the arbitra- 
tion of respectable men, to be mutually agreed on> all the 



4i/s 

existing legal differences now subsisting between the vestry 
and Mr. Jones." 



An offer was thus made to the defendants, to enter into an 
examination of the truth of Mr. Jones's publication, which 
was declined, and an arbitration expressly predicated on that 
refusal, was subsequently agreed to. When I read this evi- 
dence, I rejoiced that I was freed from the necessity of ex- 
amining into the merits of that controversy, and of seeking 
from thence to criminate bishop Hobart. But how am I now 
to express my surprise and indignation, at the acrimonious 
invectives you have heard, founded on the presumed, and 
the unjustly presumed, falsehood of Mr. Jones's allegations? 
Am I to be bound up by a compact, which has indeed im- 
paired my means of attack, by preventing the examination 
of many of those witnesses, by whom the truth of those 
allegations might have been most abundantly proved ; but a 
compact which on the argument my adversaries have thought 
fit to disregard? I will still submit to be bound by it, so far 
as to restrain myself from urging those allegations (even where 
they may have been substantially established) with the view 
of inculpating bishop Hobart. 

For the purposes of this argument, I shall permit it to be 
supposed, that Mr. Jones may have drawn erroneous infer- 
ences from the facts he has stated. But my duty towards 
him and my regard to truth will compel me to insist on the 
veracity of hi3 statements, and to repel and refute the abuse 
and calumny which have been heaped upon him. Of these 
the learned counsel who opened the defence furnished an item 
that I confess I listened to with surprise; he accused the 
plaintiff ot having instituted this action merely for the mean 
and pitiful .urpose of putting a little money in his pocket. 
If he kad instituted this suit, merely to obtain compensation 
for the severe and unmerited pecuniary injuries he has sus- 
tained, the greatness of those injuries might have shielded 
him from such an observation. But it is in every point of 
view unjust. This action has been instituted in consequence 
of the arrangement entered into by the committee of epis- 
copalians and the committee of the vestry, as the only prac- 



409 

tlcablewayof bringing into legal discussion all the matters in 
controversy between my client and the vestry, and it is con- 
ducted much more under the direction "of his friends than of 
himself. Before the learned counsel had indulged in this 
observation, I wish he had pointed out any other form of ac- 
tion, by which my client could have tried his rights without 
appearing to ask for compensation in damages. If many o£ 
the arguments urged before the arbitrators have weight, most 
assuredly he could not do it by mandamus. And our law or- 
dinarily tries the claim of private rights, only by actions de- 
manding compensation in damages. Let me then appeal to 
the reflection and candour of my learned adversary himself, 
and ask, was it fair or just to vilify the plaintiff by this insin- 
uation, and to assign, what was considered as a mean and 
dishonourable motive for a course, in truth, not attributable 
to him at all, and which was only adopted by his friends, be- 
cause no other was to be found in the system of our law ? 

But the charges and insinuations against Mr. Jones are not 
confined to acts merely mean and pitiful; crimes and misconduct 
of a greater nature have been urged against him on the hearing 
of this cause. I had hoped, indeed, that the opposite counsel 
would have imitated the correct and dignified conduct of Mr. 
King and of Mr. Harison before the presbyters, to whom the 
game matters were submitted as are embraced in this arbitration, 
and before whom any misconduct on the part of Mr. Jones might 
have been as properly stated as here. Those gentlemen, it 
appears by the testimony of Mr. Haskill, Dr. Harris, Mr. 
Feltus, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bowen, studiously declared that 
they made no accusation against Mr. Jones. That his mo- 
ral character and conduct were irreproachable, and that he 
was a faithful and pious pastor ; but that he had published a 
book, from which dissentions had arisen, and which they ob- 
viously lamented rather as a misfortune than as a crime- 
Now, however, the learned counsel, echoing the assertion of 
bishop Hobart to Mr. Wm. Hamersley,* state that Mr, 
Jones has committed an offence of the highest nature against 
the church. If this charge be intended, according to the 

* Seepage 131 and 132, 

e e2 



*10 

meaning of the expressions used, it is serious and heavy fit* 
deed. If it be only a declamatory mode of stigmatizing some 
Indiscreet or ill considered act, it is an inexcusable exaggera- 
tion, and a culpable perversion of terms, whether we consi- 
der it as used by one of the heads of the church, or as spoken 
of one of its ministers. It is, moreover, one of those contri- 
vances by which public feeling is to be excited and unmerit- 
ed odium is to be heaped on the plaintiff. That it is not true, 
I feel myself authorized in saying, on the authority of 
?ilessr3. Harison and King, who, if it were true, could not 
have borne their testimony to the irreproachable conduct of 
my client ; nor could Mr. King,* as a witness, have express- 
ed his hope that Mr. Jones might form a new connexion, 
which would be conducive to the welfare of the church. 
Nor could bishop Moore, in his conversations with Drs. Har- 
risf and R. C. Moore,! have urged how much Mr. Jones 
might be useful to the church by going to Virginia. If it 
were true, how could bishop Hobart, in his conversation with 
Dr. R. C. Moore,§ at the foot of the altar, solemnly promise 
that he rvmdd do nothing to hurt Jones ? And if it were true, 
let me retort an argument, triumphantly urged on the oppo- 
site side, and ask, why did not some of those bodies or persons 
authorized under the canons,, present him for this crime? Is 
" an offence of the highest nature against the church" a mat- 
ter of indifference to our bishops, our presbyters, our vestries 
and convention ? Or have events shown* that Mr. Jones pos- 
sesses such peculiar popularity among them, as would screen 
him from the punishment due to such delinquency ? Three 
presbyters might have presented him ; certainly among the 
twelve who memorialed bishop Moore, to have him separat- 
ed from Trinity Church, || three might have been found suffi- 
ciently zealous for their religion, to have presented a clerical 
offender against it, of the highest nature ! The vestry, the 
present defendants, might have presented him ; and surely if 
a sense of justice did not restrain them, they were not pre- 
vented by any ill-judged predilection for the plaintiff. The 

* Seep. 259. j Seep. 139. J Seep. 154. § Sec p. 153. 
!| Sec Br. Harris's testimony, page,. 138- 



Ml 

convention, which manifested its attachment to bishop Ko 
hart, and elected him for the episcopal office, might have pre- 
sented Mr. Jones, for whom they showedno particular favour- 
itism. Have any of those bodies spoken of him in this 
style ? And have they all so far forgotten their daty^ as to 
have neglected bringing an offender, of the highest mature 
against the church, before the proper tribunal ? No, the charge 
is mere inflated declamation and idle sound; or it is injurious 
invective, with which controversial acrimony has sharpened 
the tongues of my client's adversaries. It has no foundation 
in candour or truth. He has committed no crime against the 
church. 

It is true, he published a bodk charging Dr. Hobart with 
ambition., which our adversaries admit him to possess, and 
call it laudable ; but which Mr. Jones, perhaps erroneously, 
considered as dangerous, though not criminal. In the same 
book he also charged Dr. Hobart with possessing an irritable 
.temper; not in itself a crime, but a failing, and peculiarly to 
tee dreaded in a candidatefor the episcopacy. Further than this 
he did not go, and nothing c&n be alleged against him but 
that he made this publication. Our adversaries censure this 
act because, they say, it tended to impair Dr. Hobart's use- 
fulness, and to destroy the peace of the church. Much oi 
the correctness of this censure must, I think, depend on the 
truth or falsehood of those charges. If they are false, the 
publisher of them deserves to be severely reprobated ; but if 
they are true, the propriety or impropriety of the publication 
must depend on a comprehensive view of the motives that 
produced it, and on the circumstances out of which it arose. 
1 am tied up from discussing the truth or falsehood of those 
charges. It was declined by the committee of the vestry, 
who only consented to arbitrate on a basis entirely different 
from that discussion; but I must be permitted to say, that 
when Mr. Harison and Mr* King declared they had no charge 
-against Mr. Jones ; that his conduct was irreproachable, they 
must be considered as having tacitly admitted that he has 
published nothing falsely. Let me, on this subject, be ex- 
plicitly understood. Since all discussion on the truth or 
falsehood of those charges has been waved, I do not intend 



412 

to urge their truth or justice as an inculpation of bishop Ho- 
bart : but I mean to repel the insinuations or allegations of 
their falsehood, as forming any just ground of censure against 
my client. I do not call upon the arbitrators to believe them 
true, with a view of insinuating aught against bishop Hobart. 
But I call upon them and the opposite counsel not to pre- 
sume them false, in order, from thence, to draw conclusions 
unfavourable to Mr. Jones ; and in this sense I beg to be un- 
derstood in the future course of my argument. The question, 
then, of my client's alleged criminality, reduces itself to 
this : Is the mere publishing of a book, relating to the affairs 
of the church, and derogatory to some of its ministers, but 
which is not, and cannot be alleged to be false, an offence 
against it ? I am not fond of the argumentum ad hominem ; 
but its application here is so obvious and forcible, that I must 
be permitted to use it. Bishop Hobart has also published 
different books relating to the affairs of the church, and dero- 
gatory to the plaintiff and others of its ministers. Yes, but 
I am told he was compelled to do so in self defence. 1 ad- 
mit the force of that plea. So far as publication was neces- 
sary for the justification of his own character and to repel ac- 
cusations made against him, I acknowledge he did right. 
But shall I derive no advantage of exculpation to my client, 
no diminution of the obloquy and censures cast upon him for 
Ills publication ; if I shall establish this fact, that the bishop, 
whose peculiar duty it is to preserve peace, harmony and 
love in the churches under his care, and to protect and be- 
friend their ministers, has in those very publications from his 
pen, which are not only defended, but extravagantly admired 
and eulogized, sought, without any necessity of self defence, 
and with no view of refuting accusation; but in the mere 
spirit of 'acrimonious abuse, to undermine the characters, to 
destroy the usefulness of the clergy in his diocese, and to lay 
the foundations of dispute against them in the congregations 
with which they are connected? This charge so strongly- 
made, let me support by proof. Mr. Jones in the " Solemn 
Appeal" page 1, speaking of the rev. Mr. David Moore, as 
having always acted civilly towards him, remarks, that for so 
doing he has met with no countenance from bishop Hobart 






MS 

The latter in his " Letter to the Vestry? page 7, notices this ob- 
servation, and I am ready, for the present, to admit, sufficient- 
ly answers it. He shows that Mr. Moore never stood in 
need of his countenance; that very shortly after his ordina- 
tion he was amply provided for, and that the opportunity of 
showing or withholding countenance from him has never yet 
occurred. Having done this, he unquestionably defended 
himself and repelled the accusation. But to no such motive 
or necessity can we ascribe the following passage in page 8. 

<; But had Mr. Moore asked or needed " my countenance," 
I was not without some reasons for declining to extend it. I 
was one of his examining presbyters. Kis father attended 
his examination ; and from delicacy I abstained from taking 
part in it. Such was my desire to do nothing offensive to 
the feelings of Dr. Moore, that, notwithstanding some cir- 
cumstances which occurred during the examination of his son 
which would have authorized me, I made no objection to his 
ordination. He recently applied for priest's orders under a 
deficiency in the requisite age ; though the canons expressly 
enjoin a certain qualification as to age, from which they 
allow no dispensation ; though the rubric before the ordina- 
tion offices enjoins this qualification ; and though every per- 
son ordained deacon or priest solemnly declares to the bishop, 
that he believes he is called to the ministry of the church 
41 according to the will of God, and the canons of the same." 

Is this self defence ? Was there any necessity to assail the 
reputation and character of a young gentleman, in no possi- 
ble manner a party to this controversy, and just entering on 
the ministry ? Was it in order to increase his usefulness, to 
procure for him the respect and attachment of his congrega- 
tion, and to promote peace and harmony in the church of St. 
Andrew's, Staten-Island, that bishop Hobart has accused him 
of making a false declaration, contrary to the canons and 
rubric of the church, and very little, if at all short of per- 
jury? 

The next instance I shall cite is, that of Mr. Feltus. Re- 
specting this gentleman, the charges made against bishop Ho- 
bart were two, and only two : That he had drawn up a sheet 
of unfounded accusations against him ; which he could not 



41& 

substantiate; and that he had falsely accused himoi forging 
Siis testimonials. As to the first, it is confessed he drew up 
the sheet of accusations, and it is certain he has never sub- 
stantiated them. But I am willing, for the present, to ad- 
mit the excuse, that they originated in misconception, and were 
not dictated by malevolence. The accusation of forging tes- 
timonials, bishop Hobart solemnly avers he never made ; and 
although it is sworn to by two credible witnesses, I am will- 
ing, for the present, to receive his tienial as satisfactory, and 
to presume that those witnesses have sworn in mistake. He 
has then sufficiently answered and repelled those accusations, 
by explaining one and denying the other; and having done 
so, he discharged the duty of self defence. What justifica- 
tion then can he produced for the following pages totally irre- 
levant to either of those accusations ? 

* " This gentleman, though according to his own declara- 
tion originally a baptist, officiated for a long time among the 
Methodists, and was considered one of their number. His 
denial that he ever was a Methodist, though he officiated 
among them, and is said by many respectable ministers and 
^others of thatsommunkm, to have belonged to their society, 
was certainly not calculated to inspire me with confidence in 
Mm. Nor was this likely to be excited by my knowledge of 
the fact, that while a preacher among the Methodists, he was 
distinguished for his violent, and sometimes abusive language 
concerning the episcopal church. The conviction, that he 
was not " to be depended on," if I may be allowed the 
phrase, was further confirmed by the opinions of many re- 
spectable persons of the Methodist communion, who had full 
opportunity of knowing his character* They spoke of him 
as " a man in whom no confidence was to be placed," pom- 
pous and violent often, but follow and insincere in his pro- 
fessions. I was satisfied that this representation was not 
owing to resentment at his having taken orders in the -church ; 
because the same persons spoke in high terms of others who 
had received episcopal ordination, 

" These traits of character did not change with a change 
of communion. Even while a candidate for orders in the 
church, I am credibly informed, he was considered by at least 
* Page 82 Letter to the Veslry. 



415 

aome among whom he officiated in the capacity of lay reader, 
as ready to attach himself to any communion that might suit 
his purpose; and was in the practice of mutilating the litur- 
gy, and introducing extempore prayer. After his ordination, 
the same practice continued. His conduct was thus at vari* 
ance with the high tone with respect to church principles, 
and to the order and the worship of the church, which on 
some occasions, and with some persons he assumed; while 
with others he could accommodate himself to a much lower 
grade of church principle. Though sometimes the loud ad 
vocate of order and panegyrist of the liturgy ; in his own 
congregation in New-Jersey, he originated private meetings 
not sanctioned by this order, and where this liturgy was laid 
aside. And for some time after his settlement at Brooklyn^ 
he could omit parts of the service required to be used, as 
suited his purpose. These were not solitary acts into which 
the most correct might be occasionally betrayed, or for which 
the force of some imperious circumstances could be urged as 
an apology ; but they were frequently practised by him fou 
years; even after the highest principles as a churchman 
were on certain occasions avowed by him. 

u The traits of character imputed to him by many of his foi^ 
mec associates of being " pompous and ostentatious," were 
displayed by circumstances which, I think, cannot be known 
to any persons of delicate and correct minds-) without exciting 
great disgust. At the convention of the church in New-Jer- 
sey, at Elizabeth-Town, before his settlement at Brooklyn, 
Mr. Feltus was called on to preach ;< — not on occasion of the 
meeting of the convention, or on any other particular occa 
sion, but when an ordinary sermon would answer. He prefac- 
ed his discourse, containing nothing peculiar to the occasion* 
with an apology for the short notice, as if he had prepared 
the sermon after he was requested to preach. It was not 
presumed that he would leave home at such a time, in the 
expectation of visiting New-York, without being well stock- 
ed with his best discourses. The design was too apparent 
to impress the congregation with a high sense of the prompt- 
ness and ease with which he could prepare a sermon at a few 
hou?3 notice, A discourse from the same text was a tew days 



U6 

afterwards preached by him at New-YorK and Brooklyn.— 
And the presumption is therefore strong that the discourse 
had been previously prepared. But admitting the fact of its 
rapid preparation, to have stated the circumstances to the 
congregation was an attempt to make the altar of the sanc- 
tuary serve the purposes of vanity and adulation that cannot 
but excite the greatest disgust. I well recollect the disgust 
which was expressed to me by a person who heard Mr. Fel- 
tus, on another occasion, inform a congregation that the text 
on which he was to address them was mentioned to him on 
his way to the church, with a request that he would preach 
from it. Vanity is a, foible when indulged in the circles of 
private friendship ; but when it intrudes into the sanctuary ; 
when it raises its pretensions in the presence of God ; when 
it pollutes our " sacred things ;" to palliate it with this ap- 
pellation would be charity greatly misapplied." 

Is this also self defence ? Was this called for in answer to 
either of the accusations against him? Was this published to 
render Mr. Feltus useful in his vocation, or to preserve the 
peace, harmony and attachment of St. Ann's, Erooklyn ? Is 
this to be excused and justified in an elevated prelate, while 
an infinitely less offence by an humble presbyter, is to be cried 
out against as one of the highest nature against the church ; 
for which he is to be persecuted, maligned and destroyed ? 
What a weak and erring thing is man ! How unbounded in 
charity and liberality toward himself; how bitter and vindic- 
tive towards his neighbour ! 

But let me not ask for Mr. Jones's vindication in the argu- 
mmtum ad hominem. Let me defend his acts on their own 
merits. I have already said his publication must, for all the 
purposes of his defence, be received as true. Its character 
then as to criminality or justification must depend on his mo- 
tives. What then were his motives for publishing the " So- 
lemn Appeal?" The opposite counsel have gratuitously sur- 
mised for him some not very honourable ; but he has avowed 
those by which he was actuated, in the pamphlet itself, 
pages 2 and 3. 

" Thi3 subject is to be considered in another point of view. 
The church throughout this state has been summoned to meet 



417 

in special convention in the short space of five or six weeks. 
This measure has been effected without the least intimation 
being made to several of the elder clergy in this city, indeed 
to all who have hitherto been named, together with myself, 
except Dr. Hobart ; only so far as it has come to our ears by 
general report. It is moreover, a3 is known, and is avowed, 
urged for the express purpose of advancing Dr. Hobart to the 
responsible, the important office of a bishop; an office, on the 
proper discharge of which, the peace, the good order, and the 
prosperity of oar Zion most intimately depend. Now others, 
together with myself, do in our hearts believe, that Dr. Hobart 
is on several accounts utterly unfit for the office. We do 
believe, (and we solemnly appeal to the heart-searching God 
for the sincerity of our conviction) that his advancement will 
be promotive of a system of tyranny and intolerance, utterly 
incompatible with the state of things in this country; that it 
will be productive of great dissatisfaction and disunion in the 
church; and that it will subject the clergy to a state of servile 
submission, which would be highly disgraceful, and incompa- 
tible with the sacredness and religious responsibility of their 
character. We say nothing of his abilities. These we are 
ready to allow in their due extent. But. we do think that he 
has particular traits of character, that he has qualities of mind 
and of heart, which far more than counterbalance whatever 
claim he may have to abilities, in disqualifying him for that 
high and momentous trust. 

" Our conviction on these points arises from our knowledge of 
the facts which we are able to lay before the church. These 
facts have hitherto been concealed from public view. We 
firmly believe that when they are known, they will convince 
others also, of his unfitness for the situation contemplated. A 
question here presents itself, an awful, a penetrating question, 
presents itself: " Believing as we do, can we answer it to cur 
conscience, can we answer it to the church of Christ, can we 
answer it to our God, if we withhold these facts ?" Without 
giving them publicity in the first instance, we have sought^ 
since the agitating of this affair, to bring them, in a private 
way, to the knowledge of those, who might have been able 

pf2 



MS 

io arrest its progress. But these, through motives of delicacy 
have declined entering upon an investigation. 

" What then is to be done ? shall we sit down with folded 
arms, and silently acquiesce in the promotion of a measure of sa 
much moment, which we do think in our hearts to be impro- 
per, which we do apprehend will be destructive? The enter- 
ing on an investigation before the church, is certainly an 
evil. But is not the advancing of an improper person to the 
office of a bishop in the church of Christ, a greater by far, and 
a more lasting evil ?" 

If in this passage Mr. Jones be sincere, wjiich no man has 
ventured to disprove, and which no one without disapproving 
has a right to question, but without insisting on the truth of 
the facts he has stated, let me ask, if he believes them to be 
true, was he to hide within his bosom these solemn and 
strong convictions ■? To bury them in secret, and permit a 
man whom he deemed unfit for the episcopacy, to be elected 
to that office ? The opposite counsel say he was, in no event,, 
to publish, and they deny the correctness of the positions 
submitted by the committee of episcopalians to the commit- 
tee of the vestry.* " That a priest is not responsible to his 
congregation or his bishop for any part of his extra or inoffi- 
cial conduct, which his civil rights and moral duties autho- 
rize ; and that every free citizen who is interested in the 
election of an officer, civil or ecclesiastical, has a civil and 
moral right to publish truth, calculated to show that this or 
that candidate is, or is not, qualified for that office." I might 
well permit those positions to maintain themselves by their 
own internal strength ; but I am happy to support them by 
an authority at all times respectable, and in this case pecu- 
liarly unquestionable. I mean that of bishop Hobart. In his 
letter to the vestry, page 82, he very correctly observes, that 
" no secular concern could be transacted with safety or suc- 
cess, if an analysis of the characters of individuals, and free 
conversation concerning them among those engaged in the 
management of this concern were not permitted. There is no 
man who does not find it absolutely necessary to act upon 

* See page 1 79 and 1 30. 



ihis principle in the affairs of the world, and surely in eccle* 
^iastical matters, where those qualities that are calculated to 
excite distrust of their possessor, are even more dangerous 
and injurious than in temporal interests, the exercise of this 
principle is more justifiable. Care must indeed be taken 
that it be exercised only for good reasons, and only to a ne- 
cessary extent." I adopt the principles thus laid down, with 
all their limitations, and shall endeavour to show that Mr* 
Jones has not exceeded them. 

The gentlemen on the other side contend, that he has, 
and that he should have confined himself to expressing his 
sentiments in the convention, where the choice was to be 
made. I say no; if he was justified in seeking to prevent 
the election of bishop Hobart, and sincere in the belief of 
his unfitness, he did right, and it was his duty to publish fajsj 
sentiments to the world; and this I say considerately, ad- 
visedly, and conscientiously. A bishop is the head of the 
whole protestant episcopal communion in his diocese ; he is 
set over all its members, and not over the convention merely. 
Every individual in that communion is interested in his 
qualifications, in his character, in his talents, in his suavity, 
in his piety, and jmrity of conduct; and every individual 
has a right to interfere in his election. la early ages, that 
^lection was made by the laity at large, conjointly with the 
clergy; their rights continue the same still, and the lay dele- 
gates to the convention, are only the representatives of their 
respective congregations. In point of fact, the congrega- 
tion, on this, as well as on similar occasions, exercised this 
right of constituents, and instructed their lay delegates as to 
the person whom they would wish to be chosen. If Mr. 
Jones had delayed speaking till he could speak in the con- 
vention, when not only the instructions of the constituents, 
but, permit me to say, private intrigue and management 
might have already settled the result of the election, he 
would have scattered his words to the idle winds. By ad- 
dressing the episcopal communion at large, who are the true 
electors, and upon whom improper motives would be less 
likely to succeed, he might have induced them to instruct 
and control their representatives, so as to defeat intrigues 



420 

and combinations which might possibly be on foot. If he 
erred at all, it was in delaying his publication; in not send- 
ing it at an earlier period, and with a more extensive circu- 
lation through the different congregations of the diocese. 
Perhaps, indeed, as Trinity Church enlisted itself in favour 
of the successful candidate, all his efforts would have been 
in vain ; but that was the course of conduct pointed out by 
his conviction and his duty, and justified by the urgency of 
the occasion. A bishop is not to be elected in ignorance of 
his character and qualifications : no, there is not an office in 
our church, the candidate for which should be submitted to a 
more rigorous and even jealous public scrutiny. This, I 
grant, may be inconvenient and disagreeable to him, but the 
Importance of his functions, and the interest of religion, re- 
quire that his fitness should be thoroughly enquired into ; and 
if he be found worthy of the office, the pains of his proba- 
tion will be amply recompensed by the unbounded love and 
veneration of his flock. 

But, it is asked by the opposite counsel, if these charges 
against Dr. Hobart are true, why did not Mr Jones present 
him according to the canon ? To that I might answer, Mr. 
Jones, even if he wished to do so, could not have accom- 
plished it alone ; he must have procured the concurrence of 
two other presbyters, over whom he had no control ; or he 
must have propitiated in his favour the vestry of Trinity 
Church, or the state convention. The true answer, how- 
ever, is, he did not wish to do so. He neither wanted to 
suspend Dr. Hobart, nor to degrade him; he only wanted to 
prevent his elevation to the episcopacy, where his failings 
might be injurious. As a presbyter, he did not wish to in- 
terfere with, or impair his usefulness. But further, the mat- 
ters specified in the " Solemn Appeal" although important as 
to the object for which they were published, could not, with 
any propriety, be considered as a fit subject for presentment. 
The 25th general canon of the church* designates the 
crimes and scandals to be censured, by the expression, 
'-' wickedness of life;" and the proceedings against persons 

* See page 86. 



421 

offending, are directed to be " according to such rules or pro- 
cess as may be provided, either by the general convention, 
or by the convention in the different, states or dioceses." 
The general convention has made no further rale on this 
subject, and the state convention, by the 1st canon passed 
in 1802, has directed, that every trial of a clergyman in this 
church, for misbehaviour, shall be on presentment, made to 
the bishop, by the convention, by the vestry of the parish to 
which a clergyman belongs, or by three or more presbyters 
of the church; and, that in every presentment, the charge 
or charges shall be distinctly specified. The state canon is, 
I think, made in subordination to that of the general conven- 
tion. It would then scarcely do to call petulance, irritabili- 
ty of temper, or ambitiousness of disposition, wickedness of 
life; or else, God help us all, laity, clergy, and prelates! 
Nor could they even with any propriety be called, such mis- 
behaviour as should subject a clergyman to ecclesiastical 
censure, suspension, or degradation, unless by an outrageous 
indulgence, they were accompanied with acts of evil exam- 
ple, subversive of public peace, or violating public decorum. 
Mr. Jones, therefore, had no other course, if he thought 
himself conscientiously bound to act, but to publish. He 
did so, perhaps he was imprudent, and acted contrary to the 
calculations of worldly wisdom, for that he has severely suf- 
fered; he has brought upon himself much of misery and mis- 
fortune. He has brought them upon those with whom he 
hoped to share much better destinies. Yet even this pang 
will find a solace— for he boldly claims your justice. In naught 
has he offended — he will not let go his integrity.* 

Let me not too rashly say, in naught has he offended. It 
is urged against him, that he has noted down and treasured 
up confidential conversations between him and bishop Ho- 
bart. Supposing it true, is that the act which constitutes 
" an offence of the highest nature against the church ?*' And 
let me further ask what can be its possible bearing on this 
cause ? If it should have none, why has it been mentioned 
and urged ? The answer is not difficult. The evidence be- 

* See Letter to the Vestry— conclusion. 



fore the arbitrators shows, that Mr. Jones has been .treated 
with singular injustice and cruelty. To prepare the way for 
that treatment, and to prevent its shocking the public mind, 
it was necessary to overwhelm him with prejudice and 
odium : for that reason, this foolish allegation was first con- 
jured up ; and it is now renewed, to blunt the feelings of the 
arbitrators as to that injustice and cruelty, and to create a. 
kind of set off in their minds, against the injuries he has sus- 
tained. I must, therefore, be permitted to notice and refute 
the charge, however irrelevant to the real merits of this case. 
What are those notes that are so strangely cried out against? 
One of them is a representation of ill treatment, which was 
avowedly drawn up to be submitted to the bishop. On are 
conciliation, effected by Dr. Harris, it was laid aside, and 
never thought of or brought forward again, until that recon 
ciliation, and the terms of it had been broken. This is a 
statement of three distinct transactions. The two first were 
not noted down at the time, nor for a considerable period af- 
terwards; but, when the third took place, which gave to the 
two which preceded it a more decisive character, and when 
it was determined to lay the whole before the bishop, an ac- 
count of the two first was made from memory, as part of the 
matter to be submitted to bishop Moore. This is one of the 
mean and dishonourable acts, called noting down confiden- 
tial conversations! Of the truth or importance of those .facts, 
I do not mean to speak; I cannot, however, help observing. 
that the opposite counsel, in their vindication of bishop Ho- 
bart, have triumphantly expatiated on the two first of them, 
which are certainly of the least importance, and have always 
been so considered ; but they have been perfectly silent on 
the third, as well as on the matters contained in the second 
statement. This last was not indeed drawn up with the 
same view, but the motive for it was equally strong and jus- 
tifiable. The enormity of making this minute, is said to be, 
that Dr. Hobart was then living with bim in unsuspecting 
friendship and brotherly affection. Entirely a misrepresenta- 
tion! The heading to this minute bears date the 7th of 
April, 1810. Then indeed, the dissentions among the cler- 
gymen of the city of New- Yo»k were not much known to 



.423 

the laity ; but they were already deep-rooted, and their exist- 
ence and extent were a matter of notoriety in the ecclesias- 
tical body. As a proof of the then existing " brotherly af- 
fection" from Dr. Hobart to the plaintiff, let me refer to Dr. 
Harris's* evidence. " The deponent asked Dr. Hobart whe- 
ther it was with his consent that the plaintiff was left out of 
the standing committee ? he said it was; and that Dr. How 
and Mr. Lyell were for doing it w 1809, but that he had pre- 
vented it; and not because he thought that the plaintiff ought 
not then to have been turned out ; for he had no doubt of the 
justice, although he had of the policy of such measure." It 
appears then, that in 1809, some months previous to the 
commencement of those minutes, Dr. How and Mr. Lyell 
were secretly endeavouring to remove Mr. Jones from being 
a member of the standing committee, one of the most ho- 
nourable situations a presbyter can enjoy ; and that Dr. Ho 
bart prevented it, not from feelings of " unsuspecting friend- 
ship and brotherly affection ;" but from policy, lest the at- 
tempt should recoil on himself and his friends. A few 
months, however, after the date of the heading of this mi- 
nute, when matters were further ripened, he actually em- 
barked, and succeeded in accomplishing that measure, which 
Dr. Harrisf says he considers to have been in violation of the 
spirit of that reconciliation, which had been effected by him. 
between Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones. In this state of dispute 
and heart-burning, when an attempt to disgrace and dis- 
honour Mr. Jones had been only postponed by Dr. Hobail 
and his most confidential friends, from motives of policy, and 
when it was in practical progress to be successfully renewed, 
he began to take minutes, to which he prefixed the follow- 
ing heading, indicative of their motive and object, " Solemn 
Appeal" p. 30 : " As I am seriously apprehensive that the 
affairs of the church in this city are drawing to a crisis ; and 
that some unhappy consequences will ensue, when it may 
be necessary to recur to facts and dates ; it appears proper, 
while the circumstances are fresh in my mind, to set down 
the substance, and as far as I can recollect, the particulars 

* Seepage 135. f See p. 146. 



42* 

of some late conversations had with the parties mentioned, 
For the truth of the relation, in every particular, as far as 
my memory serves, and without any mental reservation, I 
solemnly pledge my veracity; and shall be ready, should I 
be called on personally to seal it with my sacred oath." 
Was a prudent man, who was made to feel the unhappy dif- 
ferences that then existed, and truly foresaw the conse- 
quences to which they would lead, was he not justified in 
preserving the memory of facts and dates, and thus guarding 
against the misrepresentations which design, forgetfulness, 
or intemperate passion might give rise to? But, what is 
meant by the term confidential conversations ? There is not 
a fact stated in those minutes, that was a secret, or intended 
to be so. They were known to the clergy generally, and 
not confidentially spoken to the plaintiff. The discussion of 
them with him, was, however, conducted, as he conceived f 
in an overbearing, irritating, and insulting manner. He may 
be wrong, but he acted upon this opinion. Now give me 
leave to ask, is every expression of abuse or insult, which 
one man may use to another, in the absence of witnesses, a 
confidential communication 1 For if the irritating and insult- 
ing language was not confidential, nothing in those conver- 
sations can lay claim to that epithet. Is the use of such ex- 
pressions to one, towards whom actual steps of the most 
marked injury and disparagement, are meditated and taking, 
to be considered and respected as the unguarded effusions of 
momentary weakness, in the bosom of unsuspected friend- 
ship and brotherly affection? And yet, precisely on that 
foundation, does this foolish, or worse than foolish accusa- 
tion rest. Mr. Jones, feeling injuries and repeated insults, 
foreseeing the progress of accumulating differences, and an- 
ticipating the future necessity of correct remembrance and 
accuracy, as to transactions, which in some shape or other, 
were likely to become subjects of unfriendly discussion, took 
minutes of them at the time ; not for publication, but to as- 
sist and refresh his memory. He did not court or soiicit the 
conversations or communications in question ; they were not 
confidential, and they Avere obtruded upon him in a style, as 
he conceived, very little short of insult and insolence. This 



425 

is exactly what he has done, and his doing this, renders him, 
forsooth, a man " in whom no confidence can be placed !" 

But another mighty charge against Mr. Jones is, that he 
never loved Dr. Hobart ! To this, since it scarcely can be con- 
sidered " an offence of the highest nature against the church," 
I may simply reply by a denial, and only refer to Dr. Harris's 
testimony,* " that Mr. Jones frequently, in conversation with 
the deponent, expressed his regret at the differences that sub- 
sisted between Dr. Hobart and him, and his wish that they 
were reconciled ; and that during the first part of their con- 
nection in Trinity Church, he had lived with him as a broth- 
er, and could not have loved a brother better." This indeed 
it is said cannot be sincere, for Mr. Jones, at an early period 
charged him with ambition, and this they prove by reading 
from Dr. Harris's testimony .f " Previous to the fall of 1808, 
he thinks he has heard Mr. Jones say that he thought Dr. 
Hobart was rather too assuming." Thus far the learned 
counsel read; but he studiously avoided the conclusion of the 
sentence, which is as follows : " but the deponent did not 
think at that time that Mr. Jones wished to injure Dr. Ho- 
bart in the opinion of the deponent." 

I omit to notice something of a similar purport cited from 
the deposition of Mr. Clark, because it is unsupported by simi- 
lar evidence from any other person, and I really attach to it 
no belief. I was present at his examination, and regretted 
to see a witness testify, whose recollection was so erroneous, 
and in whom the traces of remembrance seemed so confused- 
If the arbitrators take the trouble of looking into his cross 
examination, and adverting to the names of the two commit 
tees of the vestry that made the reports set forth in the docu- 
ments, they will feel the force of my observation. Confining 
myself then to the testimony of Dr. Harris, let me ask, even 
if I do love a friend as a brother, are my eyes to be entirely 
and forever blinded to his failings, and is it criminal in me 
to speak of those failings in real confidence, and without in- 
tending to injure Mm, to a sincere and common friend ? But 
it is fit I should confess the fact, however much it may ex- 
pose my client to the censures of the church, for the high 

* See page 1 45. ■ f See p, 1 42, 

Gff2 



offence it tends to prove against him : the opinion gradually 
established itself on his mind, that Dr. Hobart was too am- 
bitious, too assuming, and too desirous of directing every 
thing and every one. I am afraid I must also admit, that in 
proportion as he became conscientiously convinced of the 
correctness of that opinion, his personal attachment to Dr> 
Hobart diminished, and he even ventured in two or three in- 
stances to lisp his suspicions to persons, who like himself 
were interested in the welfare and good government of the 
church : it cannot be controverted that he actually did say 
to Dr. R. C. Moore.* soon after the sitting of the general 
convention in 180$, " that he thought Dr. Hobart discovered 
undue ambition in his views." Enormous as was this offence, 
may I be permitted, in palliation of it, to say, that if the 
character of a clergyman is so very tender, as that no such 
remark respecting it should be permitted, clergymen should 
not write books or print vindications, comprising observations 
opon fellow ministers of the same communion; for I confess 
I do not think that observation of Mr. Jones, however cul- 
pable, can be compared for unmerciful severity, with what 
Dr. Hobart has written in his letter to the vestry, respect- 
ing Mr. David Moore, or Mr. Feltus. 

In another instance also, which is testified to by Mr. 
Swords,f and prior to the meeting of that same convention 
in 1803, as appears by the date of a subsequent letter to Mr, 
Prentice, Mr. Jones did, in conversation with the rev. Joab 
G. Cooper, use these expressions* " it is all Dr. Hobart, you 
see how it is, it must all be done as Dr. Hobart directs." 
This observation, however, it appears to me, he was led to 
make by an erroneous representation from Mr. Swords him- 
self, which also produced other consequences still more mis- 
chievous. The protestant episcopal society for the promo 
tion of religion and learning had either directed certain fracts 
to he printed for distribution, or Mr. Jones supposed them to 
have done so. I am willing to adopt this last idea, because 
bishop Hobart seems to doubt whether the direction was giv- 
en. Mr. Jones, however, is eertain it was. Dr. Hobart was 

*Srej0. 158. t Seep. 218, 



^ 



ihe person to see it carried into effect, and it unquestionably 
was not done. Sometime afterwards, Mr. Jones enquired 
after those tracts, found they had not been printed, and that 
the money, which he conceived had been appropriated for 
that purpose, had, in truth been applied to other objects, per- 
haps as useful in themselves; but not equally meeting his ap- 
probation, or what he believed to be the views and direction 
of the society. He asked to whose order the articles, of 
which he did not approve, had been tlelivered ? Mr. Swords 
made him an answer, which is stated in three different ways ; 
in one way, by Mr. Swords in his evidence,* " that some 
were delivered by order of bishop Moore, some by order of 
Dr. Hobart, and some by others not recollected;" in another way 
by Mr. Swords in his certificate, which is published in bishop 
Hobart's letter to the vestry, (page 50) " I told him those 
which formed the first item were certainly delivered by order 
4)f Dr. Hobart, and probably some others were delivered by 
the same order, and some I added were delivered by order of 
other gentlemen" without naming bishop Moore as in the 
evidence. The same answer is stated in a third way by 
JVIr. Jones in his " Solemn Appeal? (p. 24,) " The only order 
which was noted was by Dr. Hobart ■; and I recollect to have 
understood, at the time, from Mr. Swords, that by the same 
order the whole distribution was made" Intrinsic circumstan- 
ces convince me that Mr. Swords is mistaken in both his 
statements, and that the last is the correct account of his an- 
mwer. It is perfectly in unison with Mr. Jones's observation 
vto Mr. Cooper, which would be otherwise misplaced and un- 
natural. If after Mr. Swords had stated that some of the ar- 
ticles were delivered by order of bishop Moore, some by order 
of Dr. Hobart, and some by others not recollected, Mr, 
Jones had observed, you see how it is, it is all Dr. Hobart, 
it must all be done as Dr. Hobart directs, Mr. Swords, who 
iiad before heard and who was then convinced that Mr. Jones 
harboured unfriendly feelings towards Dr. Hobart, for whom 
and for whose character, he himself entertained a strong re- 
igard,— -Mr. Swords I say would instantly and warmly k&ym 

* Page 21 8. 



428 

interposed to correct him, and would have replied " No Mr. 
Jones, it is not all Dr. Hobart, you have no right to infer 
that from my answer ; for I have this instant told you that 
some were delivered by order of bishop Moore, and some by 
others not recollected." And if he had thus corrected him, the 
circums&mce would have been too marked to have escaped 
the recollection of any one present. I feel therefore perfect- 
ly persuaded that Mr. Swords's answer did give Mr. Jones to 
understand it was all Br. Hobart, and that the warmth and 
resentment he expressed against Mr. Jones at a subsequent 
time, for asking a certificate of what he had previously led 
him to think true, was extremely ill judged and unjustifiable. 
This misconception then, created by Mr. Swords himself, 
caused Mr. Jones to use those unfortunate expressions to Mr. 
Cooper. Perhaps it also tended to excite the opinion expressed 
by him after the convention, to Dr. R. C. Moore: it certainly 
gave rise to every thing that has been thought objectionable 
in the letter to Mr. Prentice; and it probably strength- 
ened, if it did not originate the opinion in Mr. Jones, that 
Dr. Hobart should be removed from the secretaryship to the 
convention. 

This brings me to a third instance in which he also, about 
the same time expressed disapprobation of Dr. Hobart to the 
reverend Blr. Prentice; and with the unguarded expectation 
that he might communicate with him in unreserved confidence 
and friendship, he did the only thing that could for a moment 
seem to justify any part of the censures, cast upon him by 
his adversaries. Mr. Jones both wrote to and conversed with 
Mr, Prentice; the last I shall consider first, though subse- 
quent in time. It is stated in his deposition,* and it does 
seem that the understanding of that gentleman has made out 
of the conversation, something harsher than Mr. Jones would 
seek to excuse ; but in truth, every tiling bearing the ap- 
pearance of calumny or abuse, owes its birth to Mr. Pren- 
tice's understanding and not to Mr. Jones's expressions. Thus 
as to the very strong expressions, used by him in his direct 
examination, of Dr. Hobart's being " unworthy of the min- 

# See page 226, 227, 



420 

isterial office," and ihat he " had been guilty of the embez- 
zlement of public money intrusted to him for a special pur- 
pose ;" in his cross examination, f he says, he " does not 
mean to represent the expression in his direct examination, 
unworthy of the ministerial office, as having been used by Mr. 
Jones; but as the inference in his own mind from what Mr. 
Jones did communicate." One, and obviously the chief ground 
of disqualification for that office, he considered to have been 
suggested to him by the expression in Mr. Jones's letter to him, 
of Dr. Hobarfs applying the monies of the church in the 
way which best suited his own wishes and views; which he 
conceived to evince a want of integrity. And as to the em- 
bezzlement of public money, in his cross examination J he 
says, " Mr. Jones did not make any charge against Dr. Hobart 
of the embezzlement of public money entrusted to him, but 
this deponent was led to suspect the same, and it was an in- 
ference of his own mind from the expression in the before 
mentioned letter, and from the circumstances already stated ; 
but this deponent does not now believe that Mr. Jones then 
intended to charge Dr. Hobart with such embezzlement." 

This then appears to be the fact, Mr. Prentice, misconceiv- 
ing Mr. Jones, and attaching what is now admitted to be a false 
import to his words, infers, that Dr. Hobart had been guilty 
of embezzlement, and was unworthy of the ministerial office, 
and that false inference of Mr. Prentice, is imputed to Mr. 
Jones as a calumny ! Mr. Prentice refers chiefly to the letter, 
as having caused his misconception ; and I am happy he does 
so, because, it being written and preserved, cannot be mista- 
ted by imperfect recollection or excess of zeal. Before I ad- 
vert to it particularly, permit me to observe that it was cer- 
tainly written in the most unguarded confidence, to one with 
whom the writer was extremely intimate, and that its con- 
tents transpired only in consequence of the very unjusti- 
fiable act of a third person, who perused it without permis- 
sion, and disclosed them. How the equally confidential con- 
versation between Mr. Prentice and Mr. Jones was first made 
known to Dr. Hobart, and how Mr. Prentice became so far 

jSeep. 229. %Ibid, 



456 

released from the honourable engagement which is supposed 
to bind gentleman to gentleman on such occasions, as to 
make it the subject of a voluntary certificate, I am not ap~ 
prized. The letter, with ail its imperfections is as follows s 

To the rev. Joseph Prentice, Athens, 

New-York, August 9th 1808. 

Dear Sir, 

I believe you are indebted to me. However, we 
will pass an act of insolvency, and open a new account. 
This, then, is so much to be put to my credit; and I have only 
to desire you to bear in mind, that the balance is against 
you. 

This will be handed you by my worthy friend, the revc 
Mr. Cooper. I rejoice greatly, that you will have so excel- 
lent a neighbour. I was very desirous of having him settled 
at Bloomingdale. However, I am equally pleased that he 
will be stationed at Hudson, where he will have a greater 
opportunity of doing good. You will, I think, be much 
gratified in his society. 

I should have written to you by Mr. Cooper, when lie first 
visited your neighbourhood ; but knew not of the time of his 
departure, as he only passed through the city, and had not 
time to call on me. It was also ray intention of fulfilling by 
trim, my promise in sending you, " Potter, on church govern- 
ment." Indeed, as soon as I heard of a vessel in the spring, 
I immediately went to the library, with intention to send the 
above author; but as the books were not then arranged, it 
was out of my power to find it; and as the vessel was to 
sail that afternoon, it was out of my power to return home 
and write, and send my own copy. Since that, I have not 
known of an opportunity, except by Mr. Cooper. This will 
foe my apology. I proposed at this time to send you the 
book; but Mr. Cooper mentioned that he possessed it, and 
would furnish you. You will from this obtain all the infor- 
mation required on the subject, and indeed, the source from 
which all the arguments are drawn- 

When I last wrote to you, and recommended the dissemi- 
nation of Fowler's Exposition of ike Liturgy, I was not ac- 



Ml 

quainted with the intention of the Corporation of Trinity 
Church, to purchase a parcel to be distributed among the 
parishes. I rejoice at this arrangement, and I think that if 
will be productive of good. The disseminating of such books 
adapted to the capacity and to the instructing of plain readers, 
will do more good than all the controversial writings that am- 
bition and self-gratulation can multiply. It was my expec- 
tation to be able to forward you before this, some parcels of 
Jones's Churchman's Chatechism and Wall's small tract 
on infant baptism. We had made an appropriation for this 
purpose, and appointed Dr. Hobart to get them printed. But I 
have waited in constant expectation of seeing them come out ; 
though have heard nothing of them since, till the other day 
I enquired of the printer, and found that Mr. Hobart had ap- 
plied the money another way, as suited his own wishes and 
views. This, I am sorry to say to you, is the way in which 
too much of the public business of the church is transacted* 
It is time that some enquiry should be made. 

I am happy to learn the favourable disposition towards the 
church, which prevails among the Lutherans in your parish. 
I hope from some late circumstances, that the same disposi- 
tion begins to prevail generally among those of that com- 
munion. It was mentioned to me lately by the bishop, thai; 
an indirect application had been made to him to pave the 
way to a general union. This will probably be brought be- 
fore the convention at our next meeting ; and if any thing 
can be done towards an union, it is certainly a desirable 
object. I shall undoubtedly give it my hearty support. 

Present my best wishes to our good friend Mr. Hitter. 
Also to your wife and family. Perhaps before the summer 
is gone, I may make out to be spared to take a little tour 
and see you. 

In the mean time belive me, with great regard, 
Your friend and brother in Christ, 
CAVE JONES. 

The first passage to which any objection has ever been 
raised, is this: " The disseminating o{ such books, adapted 



i32 

to the capacity and to the instructing of plain readers, wilt 
do more good than all the controversial writings that ambi- 
tion and self gratulation can multiply." This, it is said, 
surely applies to Dr. Hobart, and is a malevolent insinuation. 
Suspicion must, I think, be very much alive to put upon it 
that construction — but, qui capit ilk gerit. The only other 
passage complained of is this, " I found that Mr. Hobart had 
applied the money another way, as suited his own wishes and 
views. This I am sorry to say to you, is the way in which 
too much of the public business of the church is transacted. 
It is time that some enquiry should be made." This para- 
graph does certainly express what Mr. Swords led Mr. Jones 
to believe was the fact, and truly, but confidentially, dis- 
closes what were his sentiments on that fact. It may have 
been extremely foolish and ill advised in him to make those 
sentiments known to Mr. Prentice ; but unguarded as he has 
been, I must admire the sagacity which could infer from this 
passage, that Dr. Hobart had been guilty of the embezzle- 
ment of public money intrusted to him. Mr. Prentice, how- 
ever, does not stand unrivalled in the quickness of his per- 
ceptions. Bishop Moore, in a conversation with Dr. R. C 
jMoore,* and in another with Dr. Harris,! considered Mr. 
Jones as charging Dr. Hobart with swindling ? Is there no 
gradation of expressions in the minds or mouths of ecclesias- 
tics, by which they can mark the infinitely varied shades of 
misconduct ? Must they always consider imprudences, im- 
proprieties and indiscretions as acts of " embezzlement," and 
" swindling," or as * ; offences of the highest nature against 
the church?" Or is this inflated and exaggerated style 
adopted on any systematic plan of ruining an individual, by 
raising outcry and odium against him in that unthinking mass 
of men, who attend more to words than things ? 

The counsel on the other side, after having established to 
their satisfaction, that Mr. Jones never loved Dr. Hobart, 
produce a striking contrast, by stating, that until the publi- 
cation of the " Solemn Appeal" Dr. Hobart was always will- 
ing to be reconciled to Mr. Jones. If this were only urged 

* Seep. 153 and 154, \ Seep. 139. 



433 

to show the forgiving temper of Dr. Hobart, and not to prove 
the unforgiving dispositions of my client, I should pass it by 
without remark: as it is, I shall only observe on it by read- 
ing an extract from the evidence of Dr. Harris. 

"That previous to the publication of the " Solemn Appeal," 
the deponent had frequently urged upon Dr. Hobart the pro- 
priety of a settlement of differences between him and the plain- 
tiff, and that he told Dr. Hobart it was a very painful thing 
for him, the deponent, having been in habits of intimacy with 
both ; that it was not as it used to be ; he was so averse to a 
reconciliation. The deponent says that there had been for- 
mer differences between Dr. Hobart and the plaintiff, which 
Dr. Hobart appeared willing to have reconciled, and which 
were reconciled at the deponent's house. And the deponent 
says, that when urging him to a reconciliation with the plain- 
tiff of their present differences, the deponent told Dr. Ho- 
bart that he, the deponent, was persuaded that he was in- 
fluenced by some other person, which Dr. Hobart altogether 
disavowed. The deponent asked Dr. Hobart whether it was 
with his consent that the plaintiff was left out of the stand- 
ing committee; he said it was; and that Dr. How and Mr, 
Lyell were for doing it in 1809, but that he had prevented it c , 
and not because that he thought the plaintiff ought not then 
to have been turned out, for he had no doubt of the justice, 
although he had of the policy of such measure. The depc 
flent begged Dr. Hobart to consent that the bishop should 
call his clergy together, to talk over those matters; and that 
Dr. Hobart replied, that if the bishop should send for him he 
would not attend ; for that there would be no peace as long 
as Mr. Jones was among them. The deponent says, that 
all these conversations of which he had spoken, were before 
the publication of the " Solemn Appeal," and, as he be- 
lieves, shortly after the convention of 1810. The deponent 
gays, that not long after the sitting of the convention in 
1810, he was sent for by bishop Moore, and the deponent 
called on him in consequence; — that bishop Moore observed, 
that he was sorry a report had got in circulation that there 
were differences among the clergy ; and that he wished verv 
Hh2 



much that there might be a reconciliation. The deponenT 
observed to bishop Moore that there would be no difficulty on 
the part of the plaintiff, for the deponent had frequently 
heard him say, that he was anxiously desirous of a reconci- 
liation; but the deponent informed the bishop that he appre- 
hended there would be difficulty on the other side : and then 
related to the bishop the conversation that had recently 
passed between Dr. Hobart and the deponent, as herein be- 
fore stated, and particularly that part of it in which Dr. Ho- 
bart said, if the bishop should send for him he would not at- 
tend." 

Here then we find Dr. Hobart, before the publication of 
the " Solemn Appeal" not only refusing reconciliation through 
the mediation of Dr. Harris, but refusing to attend his bi- 
shop; not from any pretended objection that such interference 
is authorized by no canon, but because " there would be no 
peace as long as Jones was among them." We find him (al- 
though he never harboured an unfriendly thought or wish 
against Mr. Jones, before the publication of the " Solemn 
Appeal" in May, 181T) actively assisting in the year 1810.. 
to turn him out of the standing committee, and only not as- 
sisting in it the year before, from love for himself and his as- 
sociates: not from regard to the plaintiff. We find him also, 
after he had succeeded in displacing Mr. Jones from the 
standing committee, avowing an intention (which has since 
ripened into action, and produced the whole of this unhappy 
controversy) of removing him from the diocese. And yet we 
are told Dr. Hobart entertained no unfriendly feelings towards 
my client! It may perhaps be true that he never spoke ill 
of Mr. Jones, or made any charges against him. If that be 
irue, and if, as is alleged, his language was always respect- 
ful, I shall content myself with observing, that when lie ex- 
pressed himself respectfully of Mr. Jones, I presume he did 
it not Hypocritically or falsely, but as he thought; and if he 
never spoke ill of one whom he had turned out of the stand- 
ing committee, and wished to turn out of the diocese, I can- 
not but believe that Mr. Jones's conduct gave no room for 
Ms Coin^, fo,' 



435 

The catalogue of my client's misdeeds is, however, not 
jet exhausted. He is accused of meanly and pitifully flat- 
tering Dr. Beach, whom he had some time since vilely abu* 
Bed and calumniated. Supposing this fact to be perfectly 
irue, what possible bearing can it have on this cause ? Is 
Br. Beach at all connected with this discussion? Why then 
is it introduced and stated to the arbitrators ? That nothing 
may be left unsaid which can wound my client's feelings, or 
asperse his character. The man whom it is intended to in- 
jure, must be injured per fas aut nefas. Let me repel, how- 
ever, the ill-founded assertion. The mean and pitiful flat- 
tery is to be found in the " Solemn Appeal" (p. 79.) " The 
first person who naturally and immediately presented himself 
for the appointment, to the mind of every dispassionate 
member of the church, was Dr. Beach. It was his right 
from his years, from his standing in the church, from his res= 
pectabiiity of character." The vile abuse and calumny is 
testified to by Mr. Prentice.*" " In the course of some or 
one of the conversations which took place between this de- 
ponent and Mr. Jones, the plaintiff, during his stay at 
Athens, aforesaid, or the ride from there to Albany, Mr 
Jones observed to this deponent in substance, or to the effect 
following, that if bishop Moore should drop off within a few 
years, Dr. Beach would undoubtedly or probably come for- 
ward with his claim to be bishop ; but that he was wholly 
unfit for the office, and ought not to be elected.; and Mr- 
Jones added observations very disrespectful to Dr. Beach, at 
the same time or times." Here let me ask, in passing, was 
not this conversation perfectly confidential? How Jhas Mr. 
Prentice been set at liberty to disclose it ? The nature of 
his judicial examination, indeed, compelled him io give 
evidence of it as a witness, but how was he authorized to 
make it known prior to that examination, or to furnish to 
Dr. Hobart, as I think it clear he did, that document al- 
luded to in the " Letter to the Vestry," (p. 128, note) which 
delicacy prevented even him, irritated as he was, from exhi- 
biting to the world ? My better judgment will not permit 

* Seep. 22 7 » 



>io6 

me to believe, what the certificates and conduct of certain 
reverend gentlemen have sometimes almost forced me to sus- 
pect, that no conversation is treated as confidential by cler- 
gymen, except indeed those tete a tete interviews, in which 
one of the parties confines himself to offending and insulting 
the other. Mr. Prentice has, however, divulged and testi- 
fied to this conversation, whatever it may have been ; and 
it is my business to examine it. His expressions, in his di- 
rect examination, are round and strong; that he there " no- 
thing extenuated," may be seen from his cross-examination.* 
' c In respect to that part of the conversation, testified to in 
deponent's direct examination, which related to the unfitness 
of Dr. Beach for the office of bishop, deponent does not re- 
collect any other objections specified, except his disposition to 
indolence, that he would be led by the nose by Dr. Hobart and 
Mr. Lyell, and that his want of talent in writing was not suited 
for a bishop." Parturiunt montes ; this is the vile abuse and 
calumny; these are the " very disrespectful observations" — 
he was indolent, his style of writing was not episcopal, he 
was very much under the influence of Mr. Lyell and Dr. 
Hobart ! As to the two first observations, they are too in- 
significant to be noticed ; as to the last, so far at least as re- 
lates to Dr. Hobart, setting aside the vulgarity of expres- 
sion, which, I presume, like the redoubtable words unworthy 
qf the ministerial office, is " the inference of Mr. Prentice's 
own mind from what Mr. Jones did communicate," every 
one who knows Dr. Beach knows it is true: the old man 
loved Dr. hobart as his child, pushed him into notice as his 
ehild, treated hirn as his child, petted and spoiled him as his 
child. And there was nothing consistent with Dr. Beach's 
notions of moral rectitude, in which Dr. Hobart could not 
have influenced him to acquiesce. It is not for me to inves- 
tigate how the charm has been broken. 

I have now examined the manifold charges and insinua- 
tions against my client; and in doing so, I am conscious I 
have consumed much of the arbitrators' time, on a subject 
not strictly before them. But what was I to do ? They 

* Seep. 229. 



437 

were brought forward and placed, as strongly as ingenuity 
and eloquence could place them, before your eyes. They 
were intended to deceive and mislead you, or to overwhelm 
me. Was I to allow them an uncontrolled effect upon your 
minds, if peradventure they could find entrance there; or 
was I myself to struggle through an argument on the real 
questions submitted to you, labouring and staggering under a 
weight of obloquy, which I felt myself able to shake off? 
Permit me also to ask, if my adversaries seized this opportu- 
nity of propagating, repeating and enforcing accusations 
very ill-founded, but very injurious to my client, was I not 
also bound to avail myself of the same opportunity, and to 
give to them a conclusive and triumphant refutation ? I shall 
henceforward strictly confine myself to the subjects of the 
present controversy. In discussing them, I shall, I fear, be 
compelled to remark with some censure upon the acts of 
many. In every case I shall do it with regret; but for rea- 
sons not necessary to be particularly mentioned, I wish it 
had fallen to the lot of any other man in the community, ex- 
cept myself, to make the observations I shall be obliged to 
make, respecting Mr. King. 

Mr. Jones, whether imprudently or not, from motives, the 
purity of which there is no room to question, published his 
" Solemn Appeal." Almost immediately after its appearance, 
the vestry of Trinity Church appointed a committee to take 
It into Consideration, who expressed their disapprobation of 
it in the following report, which I shall beg leave to read, 
because, as it is the commencement of the transaction sub- 
mitted to arbitration, it will require some comments. 

" At a meeting of the corporation of Trinity Church, in 
the city of New- York, held in the said church on the 
13th day of May, 1811: 
" The committee to whom it was referred at the last meet- 
ing of the board to take into consideration a late publication 
of the rev. Mr. Jones, one of the assistant ministers of this 
church, entitled, " A Solemn Appeal to the Church," made 
a report on that subject; in the words following : 



488 

*• The committee to whom it was referred to take into con- 
sideration a late publication of the rev. Mr. Jones, entitled, 
5< A Solemn Appeal to the Church," have maturely reflected 
thereon. 

" The publication in question appearing to relate to mat- 
ters, the cognizance and decision of which exclusively be- 
long to regular tribunals, established by the canons of the 
church, the committee deem it improper to present those mat- 
ters to the vestry in any shape by which their merits may 
elsewhere be made the subject of discussion* Nevertheless, 
in reference to the relation which subsists between this cor- 
poration and the junior assistant ministers employed by it, 
the committee deem it the right and duty of the vestry to no- 
tice, and, as occasion may require, to animadvert upon such 
of the public acts of those ministers as may be calculated to 
affect the peace and welfare of the religious community with 
which they are united. 

" The committee having, in this view, considered the sub- 
ject referred to them, are ot opinion, that the pamphlet lately 
published by the rev. Mr. Jones calls for the serious atten- 
tion of this board. 

£S The evident tendency of appeals to the public on the 
subject of private differences between ministers of the gospel, 
must in all cases be to weaken the reverence and respect 
justly due to the clerical office ; to destroy its influence, im- 
pair the discipline and government of the church, and to bring 
reproach upon the cause of religion. 

" In the case of an associated ministry, like that of Tri- 
nity Church, evils more immediate and pernicious are to be 
apprehended, inasmuch as the people will naturally take part 
in the disputes of their pastors, their own passions and preju- 
dices will be brought into the contest, and these must soon 
banish from the mind that peace and good will which can 
alone dispose it to the reception of religious instruction. 

" That a course obviously involving consequences of such 
deep importance to the character and welfare of the church 
should have been resorted to by one of her ministers in the 
Erst instance, without even an experiment of the efficacy of 



*39 

that sanctioned and prescribed by her canons, adds to the 
grief which every reflecting mind must feel on this occasion, 
and leaves less room for extenuation than might exist uncle/ 
other circumstances. 

" If these sentiments should receive the approbation of the 
vestry, the committee beg leave to recommend that a copy 
of this report, and of the resolution approving it, be transmit 
ted to the bishop, and another to the rev. Mr. Jones." 

This report appears to me to contain much erroneous and 
disputable doctrine. In the first place, it assumes as the 
foundation of the censure it expresses, " that the publication 
4n question relates to matters, the cognizance and decision 
of which exclusively belong to regular tribunals, established 
by the canons of the church," and it concludes by urging as 
ground of aggravation, that such a course as publication, 
" obviously involving consequences of such deep importance 
to the character and welfare of the church, should' have been 
resorted to by one of her ministers in the first instance, with- 
out even an experiment of the efficacy of that sanctioned 
and prescribed by the canons." If I have at all succeeded 
in making myself understood, I have already shown, that. 
the cognizance and decision of the matters contained in Mr.. 
Jones's publication, do not belong exclusively, or correctly 
to any tribunals established by the canons of the church ; 
and that it would be a gross perversion of terms to attempt 
to bring them within the offences that are fit subjects for pre- 
sentments. What course is intended to be designated by the 
expressions, " that sanctioned and prescribed by her ca- 
nons?" If they mean presentment, I have already shown 
that it was not a case for that course, and that even if it 
were, it was not in Mr. Jones's power to make an experi* 
ment of its efficacy, without the assistance of others, whom 
lie could not control, who might not be willing to range 
themselves by his side in the post of danger, or whom events 
have shown to be enlisted under the banners of his adver- 
sary. If the committee allude to any other course, sanc- 
tioned and prescribed by the canons, I know it not, nor do 
I believe it to exist. The insinuation is also untrue, that 



440 

publication was resorted to in the first instance. Mr. Jones's 
advertisement at the time declared, and the whole evidence 
in this cause abundantly proves, that frequent attempts at 
conciliation and amicable arrangement, had been made with- 
out success. The committee of the vestry, after stating that 
the matters in the publication belonged exclusively to the 
regular tribunals of the church, express strong disapproba- 
tion of appealing " to the public on the subject of private 
differences between ministers of the gospel." To me this 
seems incongruous ; for if they were only private differences, 
and no public concern, I can scarcely conceive how the de- 
cision of them belonged at all to the ecclesiastical tribunals. 
But as the committee were wrong in considering them exclu- 
sively of ecclesiastical cognizance, so they were also incor= 
rect in considering the matters of that publication as mere 
'private differences. That undoubtedly was their original cha= 
racter, and such they would always have been, if Dr. Ho= 
bart had been destined to rise no higher than a mere presby- 
ter of the church. But when he became a candidate for the 
episcopal office, these private differences, by illustrating a cha- 
racter and disposition thenceforward rendered important to 
the public, became themselves of public moment. The art 
of this report, (for it is artful,) consists in considering the 
case as existing merely between associated ministers of Tri= 
ni ty Church, and in keeping out of sight, that one of them 
is placed in a different point of view, which necessarily 
makes him a fit subject of public scrutiny. And under the 
pretence of its being merely a difference between associated 
ministers, the report eloquently remarks, that " the people 
will naturally take part in the disputes of their pastors, their 
own passions and prejudices will be brought into the contest, 
and these mast soon banish from the mind that peace and 
good will which can alone dispose it to the reception of reli- 
gious instruction." These remarks are not correctly appli- 
cable to the publication of the " Solemn Appeal;" but where 
they apply, they are just and forcible. Woe be to those, 
who, without the justification, Mr. Jones can lay claim to„ 
have industriously enlisted into this controversy the passions 
and prejudices of the people j who have by indefatigable ex= 



441 

ertions, banished from the minds of many of their commiK 
nion, that peace and good will which can alone dispose them 
to the reception of religious instruction. 

But the chief error in this report, and of the same charac- 
ter with mo3t of the other errors that mark this controversy, 
is contained in the following passage; " Nevertheless, in re- 
ference to the relation which subsists between this corpora- 
tion and the junior assistant ministers employed by it, the 
committee deem it the right and the duty of the vestry to 
notice, and as occasion may require, to animadvert upon 
such of the public acts of those ministers, as may be calcu- 
lated to affect the peace and welfare of the religious commu- 
nity with which they are united." I have already remarked 
upon the artifice of making it appear that the whole contro- 
versy was between associated ministers, and of keeping out 
of view the very different situation in which one of them 
was placed. Let it therefore pass without further comment. 
But this paragraph contains a violent assumption of autho- 
rity. If the possession of inordinate wealth and of propor- 
tionate power, had not made the vestry of Trinity Church 
forget their sphere of action, their rights and duties, this re- 
port would never have been made, and this controversy 
would never have existed. Their unwarrantable and unau- 
thorized interference in a matter, with which they had no 
concern, is the cause of all the lamentable heart-burnings 
and dissentions in our communion; for, without their inter 
meddling, the contest would have peaceably died away, or 
existed only where it had been long cherished without obser- 
vation, in the bosoms of the antagonists. The position is 
unequivocally erroneous, that it was either the right or the 
duty of the vestry, as such, to animadvert on Mr. Jones's 
publication. The individuals who compose the vestry, in- 
deed, in common with the other members of the congrega- 
tion, had a personal right to speak and think of that publica- 
tion, according to their respective judgments, But part of 
the corporate body, wielding the wealth and power of Tri- 
nity Church, had neither a right nor a duty in their corpo- 
rate capacity, because they paid the assistant ministers, rs 
the mere trustees of the congregation, to animadvert on anv 

ii2 



a4£ 

of their acts, not done in the course of their ministerial of- 
fices to that congregation. What is the vestry, and what 
are its rights and duties ? They are to be found in the. 
printed charter, (last edition, p. 19,) " For the belter order- 
ing and managing of the affairs and business of the said corpo- 
ration, there shall be annually, &c. two church-wardens and 
twenty vestrymen duly elected," Sic. And afterwards, (p. 
21) " and the said vestrymen, or any eleven or more of them 
(whereof the rector, &c.) shall, and may have and exercise 
the like power and authority for the ordering and regulating 
the affairs of the corporation and parish of Trinity Church, 
as the vestry of the said parish of St* Mary Bow, now have 
to exercise in reference to parish affairs" I should like to 
know what would be the reception of such a censure on an 
extra ministerial act of the rector or even curate of St, 
Mary Bow, proceeding from the vestry of that parish — par- 
ticularly if they be poor. I suspect the only reply they 
would be honoured with, would be, " gentlemen mind your 
parish affairs" The only duty of the vestry is to take care 
of the temporal concerns, that is, of the property of the 
corporation. Beyond that, they have no rights or duties. 
They are not the pastors of the church. They are not its 
superintending power. . In animadverting on Mr. Jones's 
publication, they were discharging no corporate duty. In- 
deed, this truth wa3 felt by one of their own body. When 
Dr. Hobart, dissatisfied with the insufficiency of this repont 
for his purposes, observed to Mr. Van Wagenen,* that the 
vestry had not done any thing, had not done half enough, 
he replied, they had done too much, and remarked, his rea- 
son for saying so was, that it was not their concern — they had 
nothing to do with it. The good sense and truth of this ob- 
servation, ought to have occurred to the able penman that 
drafted that report 

But still, however violent the assumption of power, and 
however erroneous the principles upon which the committee 
condemned Mr. Jones, they may have been actuated by very 
laudable motives. Such are undoubtedly professed in the 

f See, p. 129, 



44 S 

report; but, alas, the motives of men are seldom pure and 
oimixed; something mean and unworthy will often be found 
secretly combined with what appears most virtuous and hon- 
ourable. Mr. King has avowed a motive for making this re- 
port, not to be collected from the chaste and dignified senti- 
ments it expresses. In his evidence,* he states, as one of 
the bad consequences to be dreaded from the " Solemn Appeal™ 
" the influence it might have upon the approaching election 
ef a bishop :" and as the motive for making the report in 
question, he says, " ae the " Solemn Appeal" was made upon 
the eve of the meeting of a special convention brought to- 
gether for the election of a bishop to assist bishop Moore, I 
thought that its influence upon that measure would be diminish- 
ed, by the tenor of the report of the committee." I confess, 
whatever I suspected to be the fact, I was scarcely prepared 
for the frankness of this avowal This severe and dignified 
report, so imposing in its language, and plausible in its 
views, was an electioneering trick, artfully keeping out of 
sight the motives for its appearance, and the crisis which 
justified the conduct it condemned; affecting to consider the 
* Solemn Appeal" as relating only to private differences be- 
tween two associated ministers, when in truth the report was 
itself prepared and pushed into the world, because that pam- 
phlet related to matters of public moment, and was calculated 
and directed to the purpose of influencing the election of a 
bishop! Yes, this assumption of power, this perversion of 
principles, this haughty procedure of the vestry, this cause 
of all the misfortunes which followed it, was hastily gotten 
up, to array Trinity Church, with all its wealth and influ- 
ence in favour of Br. Hobart's election, and frown into si- 
lence Mr. Jones, and every other dependent, who might be 
inclined to exercise an independent judgment. It is true, if 
there had not been a weight attached to Trinity Church, 
which might be made to act as a power, and to hoist one 
man into a bishopric and another man out of the diocese, 
neither this report, nor the report of the subsequent com- 
mittee, nor^the resolutions of the vestry, nor any of the 

* See page 25J* 



consequent proceedings would ever have been heard of. Let 
me recal to the recollection of the arbitrators the feeling and 
eloquent manner in which one of my learned adversaries 
caught an expression of Dr. Harris's, and reprobated the 
profligacy of using electioneering tricks in the sacred busi- 
ness of choosing a bishop. He mistook and mistated Dr. 
Harris; but I invoke his indignant declamation to my aid. 
Dr. Harris,* to induce Dr. Hobart to a reconciliation with 
Mr. Jones, said " it would shew so much magnanimity, and 
such a christian disposition, that it would lay all opposition 
at his feet, that the plaintiff's pamphlet would be considered 
as an electioneering trick; and that the plaintiff, if he had 
the disposition, could never have it in his power to injure 
him." My learned friend, misconstruing this expression into 
an avowal that the pamphlet was an electioneering trick, 
gave vent to tho correct and noble sentiments for which he 
is distinguished. Now, however, that it is clearly ascertain- 
ed to what that reproach should be directed, will he assist me 
with words of reprobation ? will he join with me in saying, 
that although habit may in some measure excuse the culpa- 
ble contrivances, which are often used for party purposes in 
our civil elections, yet in the sacred business of choosing a 
lit head to our religion, electioneering tricks are an abomina- 
ble profanation? 

This electioneering trick, however, succeeded: bishop 
Hobart was elected. The vestry at large, considered that 
transmitting a copy of the report of their committee to Mr. 
Jones was a sufficient expression of their disapprobation. Mr. 
Depeyster in his evidence! states " that from the facts with- 
in his knowledge, he is of opinion that the vestry would not 
have proceeded any further against the plaintiff than the first 
censure, if they had not been goaded on by Dr. Hobart and 
Mr. How." If this should be thought the expression of a 
heated partizan, I request the arbitrators to suspend their 
judgments until I shall have made some further examination 
of the testimony. After the vestry had thus expressed their 
censure upon Mr. Jones, no further communication of any 

f Seepage 1 36. | See page 117, 



^45 

l^ind was made from them to him. Mr. King however, (and 
it was the only instance even of individual communication) 
when consulted by Dr. Harris on the conduct Mr. Jones 
ought to pursue in consequence of the disapprobation of the 
vestry, said, that Mr. Jones should suppress his book as an 
evidence of his submission. This appears from Mr. King's 
testimony.* " After the general convention at New-Haven, 
in the month of May, 1811, and, as I believe, in the month 
of June following, in conversation with the reverend Mr. 
Harris, I observed to him that as the vestry had disapproved 
of the publication of the " Solemn Appeal" I had thought 
that Mr. Jones should immediately have suppressed it; in- 
stead of which, it had continued to be publicly distributed, 
copies of it had been furnished to members of the general 
convention, and that it still continued to be sold and circula- 
ted. I remember, and probably about the same time, to have 
made the same observations in the vestry, as evidence that 
the report concerning the " Solemn Appeal" which had been 
adopted by the vestry, had failed to have the salutary influ- 
ence upon Mr. Jones, that it was expected it would have had." 
The relation by Dr. Harris of this conversation was the first 
and only intimation to Mr. Jones of what was expected of 
him: he immediately complied with it, as appears by the 
testimony of Walker and Hannay ;f the book was suppressed, 
and information of its being done was communicated to Mr. 
King, as appears by his own testimony.}: " Mr. Harris after- 
wards, and as I am persuaded, in the same month, June, in- 
formed me that he had communicated to Mr, Jones, my ob- 
servations to him, that Mr. Jones remarked, that he had not 
been aware that the suppression had been expected; but that 
the remaining copies should be withdrawn from the book- sel- 
lers ; which Mr. Harris said had been done." By the evi- 
dence§ it appears that on the 13th of this very month of 
June, the committee was appointed, which on the 5 th of 
September made the second report. In the very month of 
June, then, either before, or very shortly after that commit- 

# See page 252. f See page 1 74. 

I Seepage 252, § See page 196, 



4^6 

fee was appointed; either before, or very shortly after Mr, 
King had complained in the vestry, that Mr. Jones continued 
to permit the sale of his pamphlet, and urged that fact as a 
proof that he had not submitted, Mr. King knew that Mr. 
Jones had done what he himself had pointed out as the pro- 
per step to be taken, and had suppressed his pamphlet as a 
mark of his submission. He never communicated to the 
vestry this fact, although within his knowledge. In his own 
examination , # he says, " nor do I remember when, if at all % 
tire vestry received information that Mr. Jones had suppres- 
sed the " Solemn Appeal" and afterwards *' whether the con- 
versation between me and Mr. Harris was communicated by 
me to the vestry, I do not recollect." Mr. Laight in his 
testimony,! says, " the deponent never heard in the vestry, 
that the plaintiff" had suppressed his book, or had made any 
acknowledgement." Mr. King, then, with a perfect knowl- 
edge that Mr. Jones had done the thing suggested to him as 
necessary to show his submission and acquiescence under 
the censure of the vestry, and that Ire had not done it sooner, 
because he was not aware it was expected or required ; never 
takes the sentiments of the vestry on this submission by Mr. 
Jones; never puts them in possession of the fact, but either 
permits the second committee to be appointed, or if it had 
been previously appointed, he permits it to go into operation ; 
never, as far as there is any evidence or probability, states 
to the committee the decisive act by Mr. Jones, which had 
taken place since their appointment, or suggests to them the 
propriety of reporting it to the vestry and taking their opin- 
ion on its sufficiency ; but he kept the secret from his con- 
stituents and colleagues, and he himself drafted the second 
report on which the subsequent proceedings were had, and 
which he justifies in his testimony,! by the allegation that 
Mr. Jones afforded to his parish continual cause of dissatisfac- 
tion and complaint, and that he persisted hi the vindication of 
Ms conduct. 

What, it may be asked, could be the motive for conduct 
so extraordinary ? I think I shall enable the arbitrators to 

* See page 252. f See page 225. % See page 25 4, 25£ 



4*3 

deveiope it, by the establishment of one position. Th«E* 
was a settled design on the part of Dr. Hobart, that Mr. 
Jones should be removed from Trinity Church, and even from 
the diocese: and this design was harboured prior to the pub- 
lication of the " Solemn Appeal" To prove my position, I 
shall have occasion to refer to the evidence of Dr. Harris ; 
and let me take this opportunity of remarking, that the op- 
posite counsel have ventured to insinuate censures even a~ 
gainst him. I had hoped that they would at least have ab- 
stained from insinuations against a man, whose piety and 
probity, whose goodness of heart and purity of life are not 
surpassed by any minister of our religion. — Who has been a 
constant peace maker, and mutual friend — who at length has 
been driven, contrary to his obvious interest, and if Mr. 
Depeyster # be right, at a very severe personal loss, to rang® 
iiimself from the most honourable motives, in support of Mr, 
Jones, — who, from feelings of ancient affection has taken his 
stand with grief and pain, though with firmness, — 'but whom 
no earthly motive could induce to be guilty of misrepresenta- 
tion and mistatement. 

Dr. Harris's evidence f sufficiently shews that this design 
of removing Mr. Jones, was harboured before the publication 
of the " Solemn Appeal" In a short conversation, prior to 
that publication, and shortly after the convention of 1810; 
Dr. Hobart " observed to the deponent that he (the deponent) 
was mistaken with respect to the plaintiff, that he had not so 
many friends as the deponent thought he had ; that the plain- 
tiff stood on very ticklish ground, and that if he did not take 
care, he, Dr. Hobart and Mr. How, would say to the vestry 
that either they must dismiss them or the plaintiff." And 
again, in a paragraph to which I have once before alluded, 
* 4 the deponent begged Dr. Hobart to consent that the bishop 
should call his clergy together to talk over those matters; and 
that Dr. Hobart replied, that if the bishop should send for 
him, he would not attend ; for that there would be no peace 
as long as Mr. Jones was among them." Mr. Jones, in the 
t? Solemn Appeal" p. 85, asserts the same thing: " Dr. Hobast 

* See page IIS ]■ See page 1,34, 135. 



44 S 

has threatened in pretty intelligible language, even before 
this firm stand which I have made, that means would be 
taken to compel me to relinquish my living and leave the 
city." This assertion is by no means denied in the " Letter 
to the Vestry" but, on the contrary the conclusion of that 
pamphlet is obviously a vindication of such a resolution. I 
am not here imputing blame to Dr. Hobart for having formed 
such a resolution, perhaps he was perfectly right. My only 
object is to establish the fact, and from thence draw my in- 
ferences. The " Solemn Appeal" having been published, 
that resolution increased in force, or at least became more de- 
cisively expressed. Mr. Depeyster # states that he " had 
several conversations with Dr. Hobart and Mr. How on the 
subject of the plaintiff ; that he does not recollect any thing 
harsh or improper said by Dr. Hobart, except the expression 
of Dr. Hobart, that the plain tiff ought or must quit the dio* 
cese ; but the precise words he cannot recollect, the expres- 
sions were strong and decided, but not harsh or indelicate. 
One of his conversations with Dr. Hobart lasted two or three 
hoursi That in one of the conversations deponent had with 
Mr. How, on the subject of the difference with the plaintiff 
his expressions were vehement, all tending to the necessity 
of the plaintiff's quitting the diocese or parish, which he 
does not remember." Mr. Van Wagenen f testifies that Dr. 
Hobart called at his house next day (after the committee had 
expressed their disapprobation of Mr. Jones's publication) 
and observed " the vestry had not done any thing — had not 
done half enough." Shakespeare would have expressed this 
thought in his own inimitable language. 

" You have scotched the snake, not killed it ; 
'? She'll close and be herself." 

Mr. Thomas HamersleyJ states^ <; sometime about a fort- 
night after the consecration, Mr. Irving and himself had a 
conversation with Dr. Hobart, who said Mr. Jones must quit 
the church. Afterwards, in the course of conversation, wit- 
ness proposed some detached church which might have a seat 

* Seep. 121. f Seepage 116, 117. J Seepage 120 



449 

in the convention. Dr. Hobart said, as to that, he must quit 
the diocese.'''' Mr. Irving* relates the same conversation, 
more at large, from which I shall only cite the latter part. 
" The deponent then observed, that he could not see how 
these things were to be remedied by ejecting the plaintiff 
from Trinity Church, because he might still be called either 
in the city or in the country within the diocese, and so re- 
main a member of the convention. Dr. Hobart replied, Oh 
sir, he must go out of the diocese ; and upon going round 
the counter, Dr. Hobart repeated the same thing." Again, 
" that as head of the church, he believed its peace and wel- 
fare required that the plaintiff should leave the diocese:" and 
tgain, " Dr. Hobart also observed, that if the vestry of Tri- 
nity Church had done its duty in the first instance, it would 
have occasioned a small ferment, but which would then 
have all subsided, and the church would have been at peace., 
Mr. T. Hamersley said he thought the vestry had gone far 
enough, and that he hoped or expected (deponent does net 
recollect which) that they would do no more ; upon which 
Dr. Hobart replied, rather jocosely, well, I know what I can 
do. And, upon being asked by Mr. Hamersley what that 
was, Dr. Hobart replied, I will not tell you, I can keep my 
own counsel, and you at any rate will give me credit for 
energy of character." Mr. William Hamersleyf testifies to 
another conversation with Dr. Hobart, and says, that " in 
this conversation, bishop Hobart manifested no disposition 
for a reconciliation with the plaintiff, but intimated that it 
was his opinion that the only way in which they could be 
settled, was, that the plaintiff should quit the diocese." 
Lastly, Dr. Harris,;); in the month of June, 1311, urged a 
reconciliation in the warmest manner; to which " bishop 
Hobart replied, that it was unnecessary for the deponent to 
say any thing more on that subject — I am decided, Mr. Jones 
must quit." Here, then is a settled fact unquestionably 
proved. Bishop Hobart, from motives with which I have no 
concern, was determined to effect Mr. Jones's removal, at 
least from Trinity Church, and if possible, from the diocese. 

* Seep. 121, 122. f Seep. 13L % Seep. 136. 137, 
k k2 



*ot) 

How was this to be done? If I am right, there was no ca- 
non or provision in the discipline of the church that could 
have removed him, except the very application of the vestr> 
that has been since resorted to. It is certain bishop Hobart, 
and the adversaries of Mr. Jones, however violent, have 
either been conscious the mode by presentment was not open 
to them, or that it was too dangerous to be attempted ; and 
the necessity of proceeding through the vestry is further il- 
lustrated by this observation, that Mr. Feltus has never been 
disturbed by presentment, or in any respect inconvenienced, 
although obviously extremely obnoxious; and why? because 
there were no means of working upon his vestry to quarrel 
with Mm and apply to the bishop, and no other mode of pro- 
ceeding against him was in the power of his enemies. There 
was then no way of effecting, what bishop Hobart determined 
should be effected, but by the vestry. He complained they 
had not done half enough by their first resolution. They 
should have taken a step that would have produced a small 
ferment at the time, which, however, would have gradually 
subsided. Since they did not then do enough, bishop Ho- 
bart knew what he would do. He would not disclose it; but 
when done, he would not be accused of want of energy. 
What does he do ? He publishes a letter to the vestry, com- 
menced, as he says, five or six weeks before its publication, 
xfrat is, very shortly after a committee had been appointed, 
on the 13th of June, with a very vague title, on which I 
shall speedily observe, and after Mr. Jones's pamphlet had 
been suppressed. In the conclusion of his letter, (from p. 
141 to 145) he more than urges the necessity of removing 
Mr. Jones. He informs them that he had been applied to, 
to interpose with them in his behalf, (although the evidence 
shows, that the vestry at large, except the enlightened few, 
Aid not then know that any steps were to be taken against 
Mr. Jones) but he assures them, that in his conscience he 
could not ; that the good of the church, and even the ulti- 
mate advancement of that peace and quietness among chris- 
tian people, which he had recently vowed to promote, for- 
bade : and having broadly placed this before the vestry, he 
earnestly and respectfully solicits, that no act of theirs, at 



*5£ 

their next meeting, might furnish a pretext for imputing this 
design to him ! 

u Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up 
** To such a sudden flood of mutiny." 

Was Mr. Depeyster prejudiced in his opinion, when he 
said the vestry were goaded into their subsequent measures ? 
Am I wrong when I say the committee of the vestry was 
the instrument fixed upon for accomplishing bishop Hobart'g 
long predetermined purpose of driving Mr. Jones, at least, 
from Trinity Church : and that his act of submission and ac- 
quiescence under the censure of the vestry, was not commu- 
nicated to them, or to the committee itself, lest that object 
should be endangered ? Indeed, the evidence in this cause, 
I think, strongly warrants the conclusion, that the vestry at 
large were to be kept in ignorance of any meditated plan 
against Mr. Jones, until the fulness of time for its execution 
should arrive. The report, as given in the documents,* pur- 
ports to be the report of " the committee on the state of the 
church :" an expression as vague as can well be conceived ; 
it means any thing, every thing, or nothing, just as may suit 
the exigency of the moment. Mr. Depeysterj says, he 
c; supposed that the above committee was appointed for the 
purpose of considering of the expediency of separating St, 
George's and St. Paul's churches, and the various applica- 
tions of other churches for assistance, and was to continue 
until those subjects were disposed of." He goes on and says,J 
f there never was, to his knowledge, any special reference 
of the matters in difference with the plaintiff, after the report 
of the committee to whom the plaintiff's book was referred, 
had been agreed to; nor a word spoken on the subject, after- 
wards, in the vestry, to his knowledge. The deponent had 
no previous knowledge that it was intended to take any steps 
respecting the plaintiff, at the meeting of the vestry which 
received the report of the committee, in September, 1811 ;" 
and he further says, " he is very certain that he had no ex~ 

* Seep, 4 } 5, f Seep. 117. \ Seep. 11& 



452 

pectation of hearing any such report or proceeding, when he 
went to the vestry on that day." Mr. Depeyster's conjec- 
ture as to the purpose for which the committee was appointed, 
Was not only very natural from the silence respecting Mr. 
Jones, but was in fact correct : for although its title appears 
by the report, to have been as I have stated, " the commit- 
tee on the state of the church," yet that is only a part of its 
description ; for by referring to the documents,* we find it 
called " the committee to whom was referred the resolution of 
the vestry respecting the separation of St. George's and St. 
Paul's chapels, and who were appointed to take into conside- 
ration the present state of the church." This association of 
duties was certainly likely to lull suspicion; but still a quick- 
eighted man might have perceived in the very vague expres- 
sion " to take into consideration the present state of the 
church," something more meant than met the ear. Even on 
that, however, a concealment was thrown; for it appears by 
the documents,! and by the evidence,}: which brings all the 
resolutions into one view, that the resolution appointing the 
committee, directed them to confer with the rector and as- 
sistant rector upon such matters respecting the present situa- 
tion of the church, as they shall judge proper. The manner 
in which this reference to the rector and assistant rector, 
was calculated to mask any attack on Mr. Jones, will clearly 
appear, when the arbitrators are made acquainted with the 
whole of that report, which they have never yet seen, and 
which has been mutilated in the documents. It is to be 
found by referring to the evidence, $ and is in the following 
words : 

tC The committee to whom was referred the resolution of 
the vestry concerning the separation of St. George's and St. 
Paul's chapels, and who were likewise instructed to take 
into their consideration the state of the church, respectfully 
report, 

# Seep. 29. f Seep. 27. 

t Seep. 196. § Seep. 196, 197, 108. 



£53 

M That on the former subject they have conferred with the 
committees appointed for this purpose by the congregation 
of St. George's and St. Paul's. In the course of this con- 
ference, they have stated and explained the reasons which 
have influenced the vestry to propose a separation, and have 
moreover answered, according to their best discretion, such 
queries as have been made by these committees, respecting 
the endowment of the said chapels, and concerning those 
matters about which information was desired. Hitherto the 
committee have received no definitive communication from 
the committee of the two chapels. Further conferences may 
be deemed requisite, and some time may yet be necessary 
to enable these congregations to form a satisfactory determi- 
nation. Whenever this shall be done, no time will be lost 
in laying the same before the vestry. 

" On the latter subject referred to the committee, so far as 
the same has been examined, it has been considered under 
two separate heads. The first relating to the inability of the 
rector, and of his assistant to discharge, without help, their 
respective duties; and the second respecting the division, 
disorder, and other mischiefs which have been produced by 
the publication of the rev. Mr. Jones's book, entitled, " A 
Solemn Appeal to the Church.'* 

" First head. — Owing to the severe affliction of the rector, 
it has appeared to the committee, as it has done to the rec- 
tor himself, utterly impossible that he will again be able to 
perform his pastoral duties, they therefore recommend, in lieu 
<of the house and compensation heretofore granted to the rec- 
tor, that in future he be allowed a pension of five hundred 
pounds annually. 

" The rev. Dr. Beach, assistant to the rector, having sig- 
nified to the vestry his desire, on account of his advanced 
age, to be assisted and relieved in the performance of his 
duties, the committee recommend, in lieu of the former com- 
pensation granted to Dr. Beach, that in future he be allowed 
a pension at the rate of seven hundred pounds annually; and 
in case he keeps a house in town, that there moreover be al- 
lowed him three hundred pounds annually, to enable him to 
pay the rent thereof. On the subject of additional assistance 



*54 

to the clergy, the committee observe, that in the present 
embarrassment of the church, and whilst the proposal for the 
separation of St. George's and St. Paul's chapels remains 
undecided, it will, in their opinion, be expedient to defer any 
arrangement upon this subject. 

" Second head. — la respect to the disorderly state of Tri- 
nity Church and its chapels, proceeding from the misbeha- 
viour, before alluded to, of the rev. Mr. Jones, and which 
became the subject of the early animadversion of the vestry, 
the committee are constrained to declare, that in their opinion, 
the peace of the church cannot be re-established, so long as 
tiie connexion between the vestry and the rev. Mr. Jones re- 
mains undissolved* 

" Two modes by which the connexion may be dissolved, 
have occurred to the committee: — First, from the nature and 
terms of the engagement between the vestry and the rev. 
Mr. Jones, there can be little doubt that the same may, for 
sufficient cause, at any time be dissolved by either party ; it 
being presumed that the canons of the church do not affect 
contracts which had been previously made. Second, the 
thirty-seeond canon of the general convention, of tlie year 
1808, relates to disagreements between ministers and their 
congregations or vestries, and provides for the dissolution of 
the connexion between them. As the committee have ex- 
pressed their opinion that the connexion with Mr. Jones 
ought to be dissolved, it remains for the vestry solemnly to 
consider and determine, whether a due regard for the peace 
and prosperity of the church, does not require of them, with- 
out delay, to have recourse to the means provided by the 
canons to effect this dissolution." 

From hence it appears, that there was a subject connected 
with the present situation of the church, and growing out of 
the severe affliction of the rector, and the advanced age and 
infirmities of his assistant, which demanded reference to a 
committee, and consultations with both those persons : the 
mention of them, therefore, seemed to limit the vague and 
general expressions, " the present situation of the church.'* 



455 

This then appears, from the testimony, to be a correct 
statement of that transaction. On the 13th of June, there 
being matters relating to Trinity Church, her chapels, her 
rector and assistant rector, which required serious considera- 
tion, a committee is appointed for those purposes. Either 
accidentally or fraudulently, the resolution appointing it, is 
couched in vague expressions, susceptible, perhaps, by a 
very forced construction, of comprehending the matters re- 
lating to Mr. Jones ; which, however, were not mentioned, 
designated, or apparently thought of at the time; and if they 
had then been hinted at, probably the vestry would, by an 
unequivocal act, have declined intermeddling with them. 
Very soon after this committee was appointed, and when no 
one, except the initiated few, thought of doing any thing 
respecting Mr. Jones, bishop Hobart begins to prepare his let- 
ter to the vestry which he published, as appears by its date* 
on the 7th of August. In that pamphlet, mostly, if not en- 
tirely composed after the " Solemn Appeal" was suppressed, 
and when silence was imposed on its author, as a proof tff 
iiis respectful deference for the vestry, bishop Hobart point- 
edly unfolds to them a purpose which he had long meditated , 
enforces the necessity of removing Mr. Jones from Trinity 
Church; strongly intimates that such a measure is expected 
from them, and that his conscience would not allow him to 
throw any impediments in its way. After that pamphlet had 
operated on the public mind, and particularly on the members 
of the vestry, for about a month, uncontradicted, unrefuted, 
and even unnoticed by Mr. Jones, because his respect for the 
supposed wishes of that body restrained his pen, the commit- 
tee profit by the vagueness of their title, (which, if it was in- 
tentional, was a deep device, something like diplomatic skill) 
and bring forward a subject, not in truth delegated to their 
consideration; not contemplated by the vestry on the 13th of 
June; and which, if it had been then touched upon, would 
probably have been set at rest. They produce a report, the 
parts of which have no relationship or connection, except in 
the fancy of its framer. 

Desinil hi piscem, mulier foimosa supernie. 



Its front is fair and seemly; but its end is monstrous dis- 

gustiug. 

In order, however, to prepare the way for that report, and 
to justify it when produced, discontents must be made, or 
found to exist in the congregation. And indeed it has been 
justified in the argument of this cause, by reading from the 
evidence, for instance, of Mr. Kemper,* that many of the 
members of Trinity Church declared, " they would not at- 
tend the plaintiff's preaching, and others refused to receive 
the elements from him at the communion of the supper, but 
passed on to the other officiating clergyman at the other side 
of the altar." In the examination which this cause has 
compelled me to make into ecclesiastical history, I some* 
where found that the people of a city, having refused to re- 
ceive a bishop rightfully set over them, the clergy of the 
diocese were excommunicated, for not having better in* 
structed those under their care, in the principles of their re- 
ligion. For the same reason, I really think, the ministers 
of Trinity Church and its chapels deserve to be severely re* 
buked. What ! is the religion of our Lord and Saviour to 
take its character and value among christians, from the man 
who preaches it, and not from the Messiah who ordained it? 
Are they to carry their little dirty bickerings and petty 
squabbles into the sanctuaries of religious worship, and re- 
fuse to listen to the word of God, because it is preached by 
one neither accused nor suspected of any immorality or 
crime; but against whom they feel a paltry animosity? But, 
above all, are wretched sinners, who dare only pray to have 
their own trespasses forgiven to them, a3 they forgive those 
that trespass against them; who are forbidden to approach 
the holy supper with unsearched and unchastened hearts, 
under pain of " eating and drinking damnation," are they to 
bring with them to the communion of Christ, rankling in 
their uncontrite spirits, all their party feelings, their sense- 
less quarrels, and their envenomed passions ? Are they to 
reject the blessed emblems of our Redeemer's body, and of 

* Seep. 211. 



liia blood, presented to them in his name, and by one of hie 
ministers, and wheel round, with studied insult, to another 
part of the altar, that they may there eat the bread and drink 
the cup of damnation from the hands of a pet clergyman ? 
And is the indulgence of such culpable, criminal and un- 
christian conduct, to be made the motive of the most out- 
rageous and oppressive proceedings against an irreproachable 
servant of Christ? 

I have said the pastors of these congregations deserve the 
severest reprehension for not having checked such expres- 
sions of discontent. What would be deserved if they ex- 
cited it ? And yet, can we avoid that conclusion, when we 
call to mind the frequent and unceasing visi tings and conver- 
sations of certain ecclesiastics, among their parishioners, the 
object of Which always was to exclaim against, abuse and 
vilify Mr. Jones. When we remember that one of our gos- 
pel ministers frequently permitted his ordained lips to be pol- 
luted with terms of the most vulgar ribaldry and abuse? 
This, indeed* is contradicted by bishop Hobart in his " State- 
ment," # but it is proved by Mr. Depeyster,f by Mr. Henry 
Rogers,^ and even by Mr. Swords. § It is true, Mr. Henry 
Rogers was his bosom friend, does that, however, excuse 
the indelicacy, if not indecency of the expressions; and is 
not the pouring of Ihem into the bosom of a friend, upon 
whom he could most easily work, a strong proof of the pur- 
pose to which they were directed ? 

But what extent of dissatisfaction was excited ? we have 
studiously enquired from every witness who testified on this 
subject, and by the most rigorous examination of those who 
dealt very largely in generals* we could not extract a dozen 
names ; and they very strongly confirmed Mr. Depeyster'a 
testimony,|| that " he did hear that two or three ladies had 
refused to hear the plaintiff preach," and again, that " he can- 
not say there was a state of uneasiness in the congregation, 
in relation to the said controversy, because with all the pains 
taken to promote it, it was confined to very few." Mrs, 

* Seep. 91. f Seep. 117. \ Seep. 215, 216, 

§ Seep- 220, 221. || Seep. 119. 

t,12 



4SS 

Siartin, Mrs. Hoffman, Mrs. Ogsbury, Mrs. Maun, and soa>e 
few others, were all that could be specified. What then, I 
ask, was the character and extent of this dissatisfaction ? all 
the fanatics and the fools, the old men and the old women of 
the congregation were put into requisition ; Avere taught to cry 
out, and rail, and refuse to attend religious worship; were 
made to excite " a small ferment," which indeed would soon 
subside ; yet while it was working, the machinery was to 
be put in movement. 

The report was therefore prepared and presented; butfirst a 
most respectful letter from Mr. Jones, which was unexpectedly 
obtruded on the vestry, was read and filed without a com- 
ment. The report appeared only to aim at separating the 
plaintiff from Trinity Church - r but it was intended not only 
to be the means of doing that, but also of forcing him from 
the diocese at large, When the report and resolutions of 
the vestry were presented to bishop Moore, he sent 
for Dr. R. C. Moore,"? and under the terror of that report 
and its consequences, he sought to induce Mr. Jones to 
resign his office of assistant minister, and quit the city. 
■ u Let him go to Virginia, he can be useful to the church 
there;" an honourable testimony, that where dissatis- 
faction and cabals had not been artfully excited against him, 
he had talents, virtues and endowments, that might make his 
ministry useful to the church! With Dr. Harris, in further- 
ance of the same object, bishop Moore had a similar 
conversation,! in which he sought to tempt Mr. Jones by 
the lure of a very handsome compensation from Trinity 
Church. On these conversations the opposite counsel 
feel themselves authorized to remark and assert that bishop 
Moore made proposals of arrangement, which pride prevented 
Mr. Jones from accepting, and which were therefore defeated. 
Let us enquire into the justice of this observation. Dr. Harris 
on behalf of Mr. Jones;); " repiied to bishop Moore, that 
he was authorized to say for the plaintiff, that he was 
ready to pay a respectful attention to any honourable 
terms that the vestry of Trinity Church had to propose to 

" Seep. 153—154. f Seep. 128—129. | §<xp.' 139. 



459 

Mm ; but be would not consent to any condition that woma 
leave a stigma on his character." What then, is this culpable/ 
and offensive pride ? forsooth, that a minister of the gospel, 
who was ready to pay a respectful attention to any honoura- 
ble terms, would consent to no conditions which would leave a 
stigma oo his characterl Dr. It. C Moore indeed felt indig- 
nant at the terms ninted in the conversation with him,* 
and did not hesitate to make his feelings perfectly understood. 
Ife however communicated the proposal to Mr. Jones, whose 
conduct appears by Dr. Moore's letter to bishop Moore,f 
" -he observed that he is ready to reeeive any proposals 
from the corporation over which you preside, which in the 
estimation of christians can be thought equitable and consist- 
ent; but refuses in the most explicit terms, to bind himself 
to leave his native city, or the diocese in which he resides." 
Here then Mr. Jones makes an offer of entering into an ar- 
rangement on the apparent subject of the report and resolu- 
tion of the vestry, namely, a separation from Trinity Church, 
and only makes in his favour an exception having no connec- 
tion with that apparent subject, that he will not bind himself 
to leave the city or the diocese. That exception is acceded 
to by bishop Moore : in his notej to Dr. Moore, he 
says he was misunderstood, and that leaving the diocese was 
not a condition required : Dr. Moore immediately closes mill 
him, and expresses his hope that matters can be so adjusted 
as to restore to the church that tranquillity of which ;t was 
deprived. The only objection on Mr. Jones's part being re- 
moved, he was ready to listen to any honourable proposals, 
and enter into the discussion of any arrangement : None was 
ever made, no proposals were ever offered, nor any further step 
ever taken. And why? Because the ground of quitting the 
diocese was abandoned by the bishop : because the real ob- 
ject for which the proceedings had been instituted, was re- 
linquished, either from the ignorance or integrity of bishop 
Moore. But as that false step had been taken, what advan* 
tage could be gained from adverse proceedings by the vestry, 
rather than by proposals of settlement ; those proceedings 

* Seep. 154 f Seep, 163. J Seep. 164 



460 

ciaty going to break the connexion of plaintiff with Trinity 
Church? shall I answer, although the tempting offer of very 
handsome compensation from the vestry, had failed to allure 
Mr. Jones from his determination of not stipulating to leave 
the diocese; yet when the proceedings before the presby- 
ters were consummated, the smallness of the compensation 
to be awarded, might give another hold on him, and compel 
him, as a commutation for beggary and ruin, to consent to 
leave the diocese! For this reason no offer of arrangement 
was ever made ; no farther steps towards a settlement were 
taken ; and the resolution of the vestry was followed up by 
the proceedings under the 32d canon. 

That canon is to be found in the documents.* It has 
been so often read, that I need not trouble the arbitra- 
tors with it, but I shall make it the text of much of my 
remaining argument. It provides for a mode of dissolving 
the connection between ministers and their congregations, 
without any imputation of misconduct on the former. In 
adopting this principle of separation, it manifestly departs 
from the spirit of the 29th canon, to be found in the docu= 
Hients.f " But it is to be understood, that this church 
designs not to express any approbation of any laws or usages 
which make the station of a minister dependant on any 
thing else than his own soundness in the faith and worthy 
conduct. On the contrary, the church trusts that every regu- 
lation in contrariety to this, will be in due time reconsidered, 
und that there will be removed all hindrances to such reason= 
able discipline as appears to have belonged to the churches 
of the most acknowledged orthodoxy and respectability." 
This is the true discipline of the church; the established 
doctrine is and ought to be, that the tenure of the minister's 
settlement shall depend upon nothing but the soundness of 
his doctrine, and the piety of his life. I do not pretend to 
much research or learning on this subject; but as lar as they 
extend, there is not a canon similar to the 32d, in those 
of any other church. Extreme cases may arise, and there- 
lore the provision, although unique may be proper. Neces* 

* Seep. 21.- \Seep. 18, 



461 

siiy may perhaps justify, but certainly nothing short of ex- 
treme necessity can justify the departure from ihe true prin- 
ciples of a minister's settlement, as laid down in the 29th 
canon. Care should therefore be always taken, that the 
32d canon should never be applied except in extreme cases* 
It should be construed in subordination to the general and 
laudable rule of the canon law, that a pTtetor's station shall de- 
pend upon the soundness of his faith and his Worthy conduct. 
It is impossible therefore to suppose that a canon made for 
extreme and irremediable cases, can be applicable to trifling 
disputes, and party altercations, which patience, forbearance, 
and even time itself may bring to an amicable conclusion. 

The next observation I shall make, is, that as this canon 
is a deviation from the previously and correctly settled rule 
of church discipline, it should not be considered as affecting 
contracts previously made, (as that of Mr. Jones with Tri- 
nity Church) and in which the minister accepted his settle- 
ment, not only under an express agreement, but also under 
the established law, that the permanency of his station was 
to depend on nothing but the purity of his doctrine and life. 
Our adversaries seem to treat the argument, that the applica- 
tion of this canon to Mr. Jones's connexion with Trinity 
Church, would be ex post facto, as very frivolous. I deem it 
otherwise ; but if it should be thought weak, I must say in 
excuse, we have borrowed it (and it is the only argument 
we have borrowed) from Mr. Jones's enemies. The com- 
rnittee of the vestry, in their second report,* alluding 
to a provision in the 30th canon, f that a minister, re- 
gularly instituted or settled in a parish or church, shall 
not be dismissed without the concurrence of the eccle- 
siastical authority, assert, that it would not operate on the 
engagement between the vestry and Mr. Jones ; but that the 
same might, for sufficient cause, at any time be dissolved by 
either party; and the reason assigned for that opinion is, 
'•' that the canons of the church do not affect contracts which 
had been previously made." The committee having es- 
tablished this position, and drawn from it a conclusion 

* Step. 5, 4 Step, 20, 



*62 

against the applicability of the 30tb canon to the engagement 
between the "vestry and Mr. Jones; by an unaccountable 
confusion of ideas, lose sight of their own position, and ap- 
ply to the very same engagement the 32d canon, which was 
also enacted long subsequent to that engagement! The rea- 
soning of the vestry, then is this : when it is our wish to an- 
nul an engagement, the 30th canon ought not to be consi- 
dered as creating any impediment, because the canons of ike 
church do not affect contracts which had been previously made : 
when it is our wish to have our engagement annulled, the 32d 
canon may be used for that purpose, because the canons of the 
church do and may affect contracts which had been previously 
made! Between these contradictions, I may be permitted to 
eiect, and as I adopt the doctrine, that the canons of the 
diurch do not affect previously made contracts ; for the de- 
fence of my opinion, I turn my adversaries over to its origi- 
nal propounded Mr. King, and am content to leave them in 
asuch abler hands than mine. 

In considering the 32d canon itself, and discussing its ap* 
plicability to Mr. Jones's case, the first part of it I shall no- 
tice as furnishing an objection, is the paragraph towards the 
end, " this canon shall not be obligatory upon the church, in 
those states or dioceses, with whose usages, laws or charters 
it interferes." Permit me to ask the arbitrators, as a preli- 
minary question, Could the canon (even if it had been so in- 
tended) interfere with, or control the municipal laws or char- 
ters of any state or church? Most unquestionably It could 
not. What then was a very natural object for this clause ? 
To point out to clergymen, who too often think their clerical 
characters and their ecclesiastical regulations independent of 
rcivil authority, that both are to be subordinate to the laws 
and charters, which are of civil origin. The usages of states 
sud dioceses are also included in the exception, because, 
this canon being an invasion of the general principle of 
church discipline, there was neither a necessity, nor a wish 
jo introduce it into any state or diocese, where usages, con- 
firmatory of the approved general rule, had become familiar 
and established. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious, that this 
canon wa? n®f intended to apply in any ca*e or circumstance, 



W8 

where any thing more was opposed to it, than the general 
principle expressed in the 29th canon. The learned coun° 
sel, on the other side, observing upon this paragraph, truly 
say, that the word " church" has two meanings; one, an as- 
semblage of congregations bound together by an identity ol 
religious tenets, rules and government ; the other, a particu- 
lar congregation, having a place of worship : they further 
9ay, that in this paragraph it is used in the first sense, as 
connected with states and dioceses; and therefore, the 
" usages, laws and charters," alluded to, must be those of 
states and dioceses, and not of individual churches. I con- 
fess I am at a loss to understand what is meant by the char- 
ter of a state or diocese j I know of no such thing ; nor do I 
believe charter means any thing but the incorporating instru- 
ment of an individual religious congregation. There is, 
then, in this sentence, an ambiguity, arising from an effoFt 
at conciseness, and not uncommon, where a word is used 
that has two meanings — it is used in the same sentence, and 
at the same time, in both meanings. 



Brevis esse laboro ; 



Obscurus no. 

The true construction is, the canon shall not be obligatory 
upon the assemblage of congregations in those states or dio= 
ceses, with whose usages or laws it interferes ; nor upon the 
individual congregation, with whose charter it interferes. 
This is the only rational construction of which the sentence 
is susceptible. 

Does this canon then interfere with the charter of Trinity 
Church? It most unquestionably does. It provides means 
for removing rectors and assistant rectors, which offices, in 
Trinity Church, are held for life under that charter* To 
them, therefore, it certainly cannot apply. And, moreover, 
the assistant ministers being, by their contracts, (as I shall 
hereafter show,) to hold on the same tenure as the assistant 
xector, they are entitled to the same benefit with him, of an 
exception from the operation of the canon. But it is unne- 
cessary to resort to this last observation; for the general 



464* 

description used in the canon, may in every case be supplied 
by inserting the name of the church with whose charter ife 
interferes; and as it undoubtedly interferes with the charter 
of Trinity Church, in at least two most important cases — ■ 
those of rector and assistant rector, the passage may, for the 
purpose of this argument, be read thus; this canon shall have 
no application to Trinity Church, in New-York; of course, 
to no controversy between its vestry and an assistant minis- 
ter. But, it. is asked, is not this a grievous situation? I an- 
swer, unhesitatingly, no. Trinity Church remains only un- 
der the general and correct principle of our church discipline, 
which ought to be preserved inviolate in every case, but one 
of extreme necessity. She holds her extraordinary wealth 
and power under a charter, which renders the application of 
the canon, to two of her clergymen, legally impracticable: she 
iurely will not object to keep that charter cum mere. And. 
as to the assistant ministers, they have been chosen by the 
vestry, with full reference to the charter tenure of their re- 
gular clergymen; the vestry, then, cannot complain of the 
immunity they have voluntarily conferred, and which is con- 
formable to the long established church discipline. Indeed, 
I think, it will irresistibly occur to the arbitrators, that what- 
ever may be the construction of the paragraph in question, 
or if it never existed, the arguments and observations I have 
been offering, would still retain conclusive force, in conse- 
quence of the laws of the land operating on the charter of 
Trinity Church, and the contracts of its vestry; and even 
in that point of view, present an insurmountable barrier 
against the application of this canon to their supposed con- 
troversy with Mr. Jones. 

The next objection against the applicability of this canon 
to the plaintiff's case, is one which I have endeavoured, by 
frequent interruptions, to place clearly before my adversa- 
ries; but, either from its subtlety or strength, they could not 
or would not understand it. It arises from a comparison of 
the first clause, which speaks of controversies between min- 
isters, who hold rectorships of churches or parishes, and the 
vestry cr congregation of such churches or parishes, with the 
test clause, which says, the canon shall apply also to ths 



*G5 

cases of associated rectors and assistant ministers, and Hieir 
congregations ; totally omitting here any mention of vestries. 
From this comparison we infer, that no proceedings under 
this canon can be had against an assistant minister? in conse- 
quence of any controversy with, or application by a vestry : 
and I hope to prove the position by the most satisfactory ar- 
guments. In the outset, permit me again to remind the ar- 
bitrators, that the canon is in all its parts a departure from 
that pure spirit of reasonable discipline, which is so highly 
valued, that the church trusts, every regulation in contra- 
riety to it, will be in due time reconsidered, and that all 
hindrances to it will be removed. On the most obvious prin- 
ciples of construction, then, the canon ought not to be ap- 
plied to any case, not unequivocally included in its very 
words; and, where a doubt of its applicability exists, the 
general and approved rule, which has belonged to the churches 
of the most acknowledged orthodoxy and respectability, 
ought tp prevail. This argument would, I think, be conclu- 
sive, even if it were possible to suppose that the omission of 
the words, or vestries, was accidental : but if I can convince 
the arbitrators that it was intentional, there cannot exist any 
motive or authority for supplying it, by a latitude of con-> 
struction. A few observations will make tljat intention 
manifest. 

If it were designed to put associated rectors and assistant 
ministers on the same footing with the rectors of churches Of 
parishes, it would have been naturally and effectually done, 
by omitting the words in the commencement, u who now, or 
may hereafter hold the rectorship :" the sentence would then 
nave run thus, " In cases of controversy between ministers 
of churches or parishes, and the vestry or congregation of 
euch churches or parishes, which controversies," &c. This 
would have have included every kind of minister under on© 
rule; and the departure from this mode of expression, by 
interpolating the description of one particular class, shows 
that the rule which was applicable to that class, was not 
considered applicable to the other classes of ministers. Eveif 
n the canon had been originally drafted for rectors only, or 

H m 2 



*6B 

lar forgetfuluess of associated rectors and assistant ministers 
and that it was thought necessary to introduce them, and 
subject them to the like regulations as had been previously con- 
templated for rectors, the clumsy device of introducing three 
lines at the end, instead of erasing less than one line at the be- 
ginning of the canon, would never have been resorted to ; or if it 
were resorted to, the laborious penman would have carefully 
compared his three additional lines, with those already writ- 
ten and relating to the same matter, so as- to include all the 
provisions and contingencies of the former. Rectors, associ- 
ated rectors* and- assistant ministers were studiously separa- 
ted, because a different and more complex provision was intend- 
ed to be made for rectors than for the others : that more com- 
plex provision was first described, and then the more simple 
regulation for associated rectors and assistant ministers was 
speedily and satisfactorily made, by reference to the former 
provision, and by omitting what created the complexity. 
Why is a more complex provision necessary for rectors ? Be- 
cause they stand in two relations, as a part of the religious 
corporation they have a relation to the vestry, aa pastors 
they have a relation to the congregation. They necessarily 
and properly come in contact with both bodies in different 
capacities, and may therefore have a controversy with ei- 
ther : an associated rector or assistant minister, where he ie 
no part of the corporation, can properly have no contact 
with the vestry, out of which a controversy might arise; be- 
ing only a pastor, his controversy, if he has any connected 
with the discharge of his duties, can only be with the con- 
gregation. As to assistant ministers, this is perfectly clear 
and universally true ; as to associated rectors, in some cases 
it may be said, they are corporate officers, as for instance, 
in Trinity Church itself. Where they are so, it is under char- 
ters, laws, or usages that existed prior to this canon, there 
fore they are there, I presume, officers for life, and under 
ihe argument I have already offered, to them the canon doe9 
not in any event apply. The associated rectors meant in this 
paragraph, and these joined with assistant ministers, are 
such as are not charter officers. Besides the office was very 



&67 

■tf&re, very disagreeable to the general conventions, and one 
which they wished to abrogate, by treating and considering 
those holding it, as assistant ministers. Bishop Hobart in 
his letter to the vestry, has inserted the sheet of accusa- 
tions which he prepared against Mr. Feltus, in which* he 
describes the office of joint or associated rector as " an inno- 
vation in the constitution of parochial churches, of which 
there is only one solitary instance (introduced under some 
very peculiar circumstances) in the United States, and which 
we believe is unnecessary, injudicious, and tending to dis- 
cord and disunion." Afterwards,! he says, " the sentiment 
and usage of the church were against it; and the general 
convention at Baltimore, some years ago, unanimously pass- 
ed a resolution strongly -disapproving of the office, and re- 
commending its being abrogated where it prevailed." No 
wonder then, if in conformity to tJiose views, in considera- 
tion that the office ie rare and useless, and looking to its be- 
ing considered only on a level with that of assistant minister 
the canon couples them together in the same provision. 

I have said an assistant minister can have no contact with 
a vestry, out of which such a controversy, as is contempla- 
ted by the canon, could arise ; when he is once settled under 
a regular salary, there can properly be no differences between 
them, but as to the earning and payment of that salary : 
that difference the law of the land will settle on its own prin- 
ciples, and if the congregation are not dissatisfied with their 
assistant minister's discharge of his duties, or pastoral con- 
duct, the vestry, as a part of the corporation, instituted only 
for protecting the property of &he church, have no right or 
power to express or create any dissatisfaction respecting him> 
separately and distinctly from the congregation at large. 
*The framers of the canon reasoned on the principles I sub- 
mitted to the arbitrators, when observing on the first report 
made by a committee of the vestry of Trinity Church, res- 
pecting the publication of the " Solemn Appeal*" that ves- 

* Letter to the Vestry, page 88, 
f Ibid, page 92. 



4B# 

tries had bo right or duty to meddle with such matters, aiae 
had nothing to do with them. 

But, it has been asked, cannot the congregation, if it have 
such a difference, act through the vestry? I answer no; the 
application must proceed from the parties themselves or either 
of them 5 under the express words Of the canon. Even if 
such a delegation were possible, the congregation certainly 
should solicit the interposition of the vestry, before that 
body could pretend to act as their delegates or representa- 
tives In this case, the resolutions of the vestry* claim 
no delegated character ; but explicitly asserts that the dif- 
ferences exist between Mr. Jones and the vestry itself. The 
congregation never were consulted, either as to the existence 
or extent of the controversy, or as to their wishes whether 
any, or what measures should be pursued. They were never 
informed that Mr. Jones had signified his acquiescence under 
the expressed disapprobation, by suppressing his pamphlet. 
They were never consulted, how far that measure on his part 
would be acceptable as a satisfaction Or apology. They 
were informed of nothing that was going on, and in my soul 
I believe, that after they had been correctly apprised of Mr. 
Jones's conduct, and of the contemplated measures of the 
vestry, if the opportunity had been given, the congregation 
would have manifested the most decided disapprobation of 
making any further attempts against him. At any rate, the 
conduct pursued by the vestry of Trinity Church, and the 
claims asserted on its behalf, warrant the observation, that 
if it could proceed under the canon as it has done, and with- 
out consulting the congregation, it might dissolve the con- 
nexion between an assistant minister and the congregation, 
against the wishes of both. There is then this radical vice in 
the proceedings, that the parties to the controversy, are not 
the parties designated in the canon. 

The controversy which comes within its purview, mu6t 
also exist between the minister as one party, and the vestry 
or congregation as another integral party : it cannot be be*. 

* See pages 5. 8, 



460 

tween the different members of tire congregation disputing 
among themselves ; such a dispute or controversy as that, 
can never form any ground for applying the canon against the 
minister. What was the case here? The controversy, if 
any, was between the different members of the congrega- 
tion, some strongly supporting and others opposing Mr. JoneSv 
Take to thi3 point the evidence of their chief witness, Mr. 
King. In his evidence* he describes the disputes thus, " Mr. 
Jones and his friends, with activity and zeal, as 1 understood, 
endeavoured to vindicate his conduct, and represented him'* 
(you will judge how truly) " as an injured and persecuted 
man ; while those who, with the vestry, disapproved of Mr. 
Jones's conduct, with equal zeal and activity endeavoured 
to establish their opinions among the parishioners : the con* 
sequence of this disorderly condition of the congregation had 
been foreseen, and the fears of the vestry were justified by 
the heat, uncharitablcness and division which was extending 
themselves throughout the parish. The continuance of Mr. 
Jones as one of the assistant ministers, in this situation of 
the congregation, would, in my opinion, have given strength 
and permanency to this state of disorder ; while his separation 
ivould naturally stop the further progress of the dispute, and in 
time re-establish the harmony tJiat had prevailed in the ccngrega* 
Hon." What is the unvarnished meaning of this paragraph, 
stript of its imposing gloss ? That Mr. Jones had a great 
many advocates in the congregation, who considered the 
conduct of the vestry against him, and of those whom the 
vestry supported, as extremely reprehensible, and who were 
therefore desirous of shielding him from injury and persecution ; 
that those were daily becoming more numerous and formida- 
ble 5 that while it could yet be done, Mr. Jones should be 
removed from his situation by his adversaries, in hopes that 
when he was banished, his friends might drop off, or die 
away ; the progress of the disapprobation against the vestry 
and those whom it supported, might be stopped; thus, by 
degrees they would regain their endangered ascendency ! 
Mr. King again says,f " The vestry disapproved of Mr. 

* See page 253, f See page 255, 



$5$ 

Jones'i conduct, lie persisted in the vindication of &** 
How in the name of heaven ? By immediately suppressing his 
pamphlet at the suggestion of Mr. King himself and making 
that suppression known to him as a proof of his respectful defer- 
ence to the opinion of the vestry ! " Observing the increase of 
the division and disorder of the congregation, the vestry became 
satisfied that its peace could be re-established only by the dis= 
mission of Mr. Jones," The doctrine here contended for, 
is, that because many of the congregation supported Mr. 
Jones, he should be removed; that in proportion as the num- 
ber of those who thought him -right increased, in the same 
proportion did the necessity of his removal become more ur- 
gent; that, indeed, if every one of the congregation thought 
Aim wrong, and differed from him, the canon need not be re- 
sorted to; but that if half, or nearly half, approved of his 
conduct, his sacrifice was indispensable, and the controversy 
was exactly of the nature contemplated by the canon. I do 
not know that half the congregation did iu fact support him; 
for I am ignorant how far the popularity, and probably the 
well earned popularity of his opponent may have injured 
him — but the number of those who espoused his cause, was 
certainly most respectable; and their number and respecta- 
bility was the motive of breaking his pastoral connexion with 
them. I assume the position, however, of one half support- 
ing him, to show that this cannot be such a controversy as 
the canon alludes to. That must be between the minister 
and the congregation, as a body; if it be only dispute and 
division in the congregation itself, the canon does not apply. 
This was exactly such a case : it was a mere division of 
opinion between the different members of the congregation, 
produced by the first report of the committee, as much as by 
4he plaintiff's pamphlet; to subdue this division, the vestry, 
which, after the publication of that report, had no longer any 
controversy with him, availing itself of superior power and 
mfiuence, determined to sacrifice him although he was not 
more productive of the division than themselves. 

Again, the controversy to which the canon is applicable, 
must present an extreme case, which nothing but the canon 
can remedy Means must be taken by conciliatory effort 



mi 

by speaking with your neighbour at the gate of the temple, 
and by seeking for amicable arrangement in every reasonable 
way, to heal the differences which may have unfortunately 
arisen, before it is justifiable to apply to the bishop and his 
presbyters. They are only warranted to interfere, when 
their interference is become indispensably necessary to restore 
the peace, and promote the prosperity of the church. They 
can only arbitrate on a controversy, which has proceeded 
such lengths as to preclude all hope of its favourable termina- 
tion. In such a case, the parties applying to the bishop^ 
ought to be able to say, we have made propositions which 
We thought just and reasonable ; we have done every thing 
in our power towards a settlement of this controversy ; but 
all our propositions have been rejected, and all our efforts 
have been unavailing. Was that course pursued here's* 
Was any thing suggested, proposed, discussed, or listened to 
by the vestry ? Mr. Jones had, as I have already stated, 
on the suggestion of Mr. King, suppressed his pamphlet * 
finding bishop Hobart's letter to the vestry follow fast upon 
that suppression, and published, distributed, and sold, on 
the fourth of September, he addressed a letter to them also, 
but as a mere private communication.* 

This letter, in deference to the vestry, expresses his de= 
termination to wait for the intimation of their opinion, as to 
the line it would be proper for him to pursue: he explicitly 
states that he is ready to enter upon any terms of amicable 
adjustment, consistent with the character of gentlemen and 
christians : he conscientiously declares that an entire dispo- 
sition exists on his part for the removal of all difficulties,, 
and for the adopting of any measures which their wisdom 
might devise, for the restoration of peace and harmony to 
the church. Mr. Laight, in his testimony,! thinks the 
vestry were induced to act against Mr. Jones in conse- 
quence of his silence: in this letter he explains his reasons 
for having been silent, refers to a member of the vestry, and 
of the former committee for the confirmation of his state- 
ment $ and exculpates himself, at least, from every charge of 

* Seep. 26, 27, \ Seev, 225, 



obstinacy or disrespect. Could a stronger step than the 
writing of this letter 5 have been taken by the plaintiff, to 
terminate the dispute ? If any decisive measures had been 
previously meditated against him, ought it not to have pro- 
duced a pause, and to have excited the vestry to make some 
proposition, if for no other purpose, at least to test his sin- 
c^rity ? Ought it not to have been honoured with some no- 
tice? It received none. It was read immediately before 
the report of the second committee was made. Mr. De~ 
peyster* asked, what order was to be taken on it; he was 
answered, "that it would be filed:" it was filed; and 
then, with that letter on their files, and with knowledge in 
the breast of Mr. King, the iramer of the report, that Mr* 
Jones had, at his very suggestion, and to mark his defer- 
ence for their opinion, suppressed his book, the report wa$ 
read, and the resolutions of the vestry adopted, declaring 
the controversies to be of such a nature as could not be set- 
tled between them ! No opportunity was given to Mr. Jones 
to make any further advances towards conciliation or expla- 
nation, And why ? Because the vestry were determined 
upon having a controversy, and upon not letting it slip from 
them. They pursued the advice of one of my countrymen, 
who apprehended thai a flimsy affair of honour would be too 
easily adjusted — " It is a very pretty quarrel as it stands, gen- 
tlemen, now don't spoil it by explanations. 1 ' Yes, it was a 
very pretty quarrel as it stood — it just answered their views ; 
and no explanations were permitted, lest they should spoil it. 
But the opposite counsel say, Mr. Jones's own letter ad- 
mits this controversy; for it expressly alludes to the unhappy 
{Inferences existing in the church; and it laments a difference of 
sentiment m the vestry from what he felt himself compelled 
to entertain. To what miserable shifts must our adversaries 
ho put, when they resort to these expressions, as proofs of 
an existing controversy. The differences existing in the 
church, are clearly the differences existing between the mi- 
nisters of the church, which had been formally brought to 
the cognizance of the vestry, by bishop Hobart's letter. It 
will scarcely be said to have been a difference between the 

* Sec page 1 18, 



vestry and the plaintiff, of which the former i; had no cognj,* 
zance" before the publication of that pamphlet. Indeed, 
the concluding paragraph, where it speaks of burying resent- 
ments, and observing a decorous deportment, can only ap- 
ply to the clerical disputes. The difference of sentiment \ 
however, is with the vestry, and a difference of sentiment 
is surely a difference! Sagaciously and truly observed; bu£ 
is it such a difference as imperiously demands the interpose 
tion of the bishop and his presbyters ? Is every difference 
of opinion to dissolve the connexion between a minister and 
his congregation ? Or, is every pastor of the church to sur- 
render up the independence of his judgment, on every sub* 
ject, to the vestry who commands his salary ? Is that the 
reasonable discipline, which makes the station of a minister 
dependent on nothing but his own soundness in the faith, or 
worthy conduct? 

In those extreme cases of controversy, which preclude all 
favourable hope of termination, and when the dissolution of 
the pastoral connexion is indispensably necessary to restore 
the peace, and promote the prosperity of the church, the ca° 
non enjoins, that the application shall be made to the bishop 
of the diocese, or, in one word, to the diocesan. As far as I 
know, this is the only canon, which, in speaking of a bi- 
shop, uses that marked and distinctly exclusive phrase, " the 
bishop of the diocese ," and the reason, I believe to be, that 
the regulation, which makes the station of a minister de- 
pendent on something very different from his own soundness 
in the faith, or worthy conduct, is so great a departure from 
the reasonable discipline, that belonged to the churches of 
the most acknowledged orthodoxy and respectability, that it 
was thought fit to confine the discretionary enforcement of it 
to the highest existing ecclesiastical authority in the dic- 
cese. Sure I am, that the law sanctioning such a departure 
from the correct principles of church government, should al- 
ways receive the strictest construction. Here let me reply 
to the charges made against us, by our adversaries, with ap- 
parent indignation, that we seek to destroy and overturn the 
various act3 of episcopal authority performed by bishop 
Moore, I say, ruith apparent indignation; for they wejl 
n n 2 ' 



know that we know We have no such power; they well 
know we have no such views; they well know we should 
shrink with abhorrence, at least equal to their own, from any 
such atrocious efforts, to invalidate or impair the force of 
those sacred acts of ordination or confirmation, or of any 
other nature, which were done by virtue of the episcopal 
character. We admit all bishop Moore's rights as a bishop.. 
We acknowledge that those acts would be valid, even if per- 
formed by a transient bishop, in the diocese, without the 
consent of the diocesan ; although such an exercise of his 
functions would be, to the last degree, irregular and contrary 
io church discipline. To every such act, the maxim of our 
law applies, fieri non debet, sed factum valet. How much 
more readily do we acknowledge the incontestible validity of 
those acts, performed by bishop Moore, who was undoubtedly 
consecrated a bishop of this diocese, and made competent 
therein to all episcopal duties ; who, though he did not ob- 
tain bishop Provoost's concurrence to the regulations by 
which he was to be directed, acted with his permission, and 
never^ except in this instance, against his consent. If my 
client were to attempt bringing in question the validity of 
those acts, operating probably on every congregation in the 
diocese, then indeed he would merit execration from the 
community; but those who now seek to heap them on him, 
well know that such wickedness and folly are not in his head* 
his heart, or in his nature. 

The learned counsel opposed to us, are not content with 
our admission, that bishop Moore is a bishop of this diocese, 
ihey insist that he is its diocesan ; and, in support of this 
claim, rely on his undisputed exercise of diocesan powers 
for ten years, and on the uniform acquiescence of the clergy 
therein. If no other answer could be given to this argument, 
it would be sufficient to reply, that our church knows no 
such thing as a possessory title to the diocesan character — it 
must be clearly derived from the delegation of the competent 
authority; neither ten nor twenty years undisputed exercise 
of diocesan powers, would advance one jot towards creating 
a good title to them: and, as the clergy do not confer the 
diocesan character, so their acquiescence cannot avail in es* 



475 

tablishing it. But, what was the nature of this acquies- 
cence ? Bishop Modre being competent to the discharge of 
all episcopal duties within the diocese, and there being no 
motive to excite any one to an investigation of the arrange- 
ments between him and bishop Provoost, it was supposed by 
my client, and by every clergyman in the diocese, that he 
was acting under the authority of the latter, as an assistant. 
The acquiescence, therefore, may be fairly attributed to ig- 
norance and mistake. This is evident from the testimony of 
Mr. Ireland. 

But, before I trouble the court with his testimony, let me 
notice the observations that have been made upon this wit- 
ness. " He is a degraded clergyman," and because he is a 
witness in this cause, he is sarcastically called, " the bosom 
friend of Mr. Jones, who was one of his accusers, and as* 
sisted in bringing him to the trial which caused his degrada- 
tion." This bosom friendship is not proved; nor is it true: 
but this is true — that although Mr. Jones was one of the ac- 
cusers of Mr. Ireland, he was shocked and mortified at the 
outrageous sentence of the presbyters. It is true, that one 
of those quarrels excited with him by his reverend brethren, 
arose from this, that he would not, by any word or act, ap- 
pear to approve of its disproportionate severity; and would 
liot join in a combination to prevent a reversal of those pro= 
ceedings. 

I cannot deny that Mr. Ireland is a degraded clergyman*. 
In the warmth of passion he raised his hand in a menacing 
position, and gave the lie to one of the vestry. And he was 
also convicted of meddling with matters of money, in a way 
very common among merchants, but not to be permitted to a 
minister of the gospel. These were his offences ; but such 
as they are, no man has ever dared to question his veracity. 
He is a man, (and perhaps it has contributed to his down- 
fall,) whose talents and learning would have placed him in 
the foremost ranks of any literary profession to which he be- 
longed. His pamphlet has been called a disgrace to the lan- 
guage in which it is written. This is one of those exagge- 
rated expressions in which our adversaries frequently in-* 
dulge ; such as the £5 offence of the highest nature against 



4,7$ 

the church: ' but it has no meaning, except to show the 
soreness which is felt under the sarcastic severity of his re- 
marks. He has not spared those, who, when they had the 
opportunity, did not spare him. So far as that pamphlet 
discusses the subject I am now considering, though short in 
compass, it is conclusive in argument ; and it cannot be at- 
tentively read, without affording the most satisfactory infor- 
mation. I now return to his testimony, and, to the imme- 
diate subjects in discussion. 

Mr. Ireland states,* " thai he has never had a doubt, from 
the time of bishop Moore's consecration to the present, that bi- 
shop Provoosl was the diocesan of this diocese, but he did sup- 
pose that an arrangement had been made between bishop Pro- 
roost and bishop Moore, by which bishop Provoost delegated 
to bishop Moore the authority under which he acted." And 
Br. Harrisf says, " that when he attended, as a member of the 
house of clerical and lay deputies, the consecration of bishop 
Moore, and signed his testimonials, he did it on the ground 
that bishop Moore was thereby made an assistant, or coadju- 
tor bishop, and he verily believes that such w r as the under- 
standing of the other members of that convention." So Dr« 
ft. C. MooreJ testifies, that " he has always considered bishop 
Provoost as the diocesan, since his consecration; but did 
not suppose that he would have acted after the consecra- 
lion oi bishop Moore' as a coadjutoif bishop; but this depo- 
nent always thought that bishop Provoost had the right of 
acting under the minutes of the house of bishops." And, 
again, " the deponent always considered the acts of bishop 
Moore as valid, unless controlled by bishop Provoost :" and 
in another place, he says, that he " has always, since he 
first saw tha minutes of the house of bishops, appointing bi- 
shop Moore, considered him only as a coadjutor bishop, and 
he has frequently expressed this opinion to other episcopal 
clergymen- and has never heard it controverted; but the de- 
ponent never thought that bishop Provoost would have acted 
after the appointment of bishop Moore, though he considered 
trim as having the right to do so, if he thought fit." Indeed, 

"Seep. 121, 125, f Seep. 133. \ Seep. 125, 



the generally received opinion that bishop Moore was no 
more than an assistant, until the heat of the present con- 
troversy had generated new paradoxes, is most strongly 
evidenced by what took place at the special state con- 
vention, in May, 1811, and testified to by several witnesses; 
but I shall content myself by referring to Dr. Harris.* 
" The deponent was a member of the special state conven- 
tion, in May, 1811, when Dr. Hobart was elected, and re- 
members to have heard Mr. Harison make a motion in that 
body, that the person then to be elected bishop, should, on 
the death of bishop Moore, succeed him as diocesan of the 
state ; upon which. Dr. Moore observed, that would be going 
further than they had power to do; for that bishop Provooat 
was the diocesan, and appealed to Dr. Beach, who was then 
in the chair, whether Or not he was correct in his opinion, 
who decided that he was. Mr. Harison then changed the 
form of his motion, that the person to be elected should suc- 
ceed to the place of bishop Moore, in case he should survive 
him. That Dr. Beach was president of the house of clerical 
and lay deputies, in 180 J, when bishop Moore was conse- 
crated." The acquiescence then of the clergy of the dio- 
cese, and among others, of the plaintiff, was no more than 
this, that bishop Moore being, as assistant bishop, com- 
petent to all the episcopal acts, and, therefore, no necessity 
or interest prompting to a particular enquiry as to his ar° 
rangements with bishop Provoost, whose intention of not 
further acting was well known; it was taken for granted^ 
without enquiry, that all proper delegation of authority had 
been given ; and his clergy acted with him, believing that 
he had, and, as if he had plenary powers. If any acquies* 
cence on their part could affect the question, who was in fact 
the diocesan, this undoubtedly is not of such a cast : that 
question must therefore be decided on its own merits. 

In entering upon the discussion of this point, permit me, 
with respect* to remark upon a difficulty, which we have al- 
ways felt; but to which we have voluntarily and cheerfully 
submitted* The scheme of church government for which 

* Seep. 133, 



478 

our adversaries would have to contend, we foresaw would be 
more congenial than ours, to the habits and already formed 
opinions of those whom we were to address. To arbitrators 
themselves, presbyterians in principle, arguments derived 
from the sacred character of episcopacy could not, it might 
seem, be urged with any reasonable prospect of exciting con- 
viction — in truth the more the divinity of that character was 
to be cast into shade, and the more it was to be made appear 
a mere human institution, subject to human regulation and 
control, the more, we were aware, would the arguments 
present to their eyes, the appearance of sound and correct 
reasoning. But even under the sense of that disadvantage, 
we felt encouraged and assured by another reflection ; that our 
judges were men, whose minds were habituated by their former 
professional practice, and their present judicial stations, to di^ 
vest themselves of the peculiarities of their own private senti- 
ments, and to enter with strong and penetrating research into 
topics of discussion growing out of almost every profession and 
occupation of life, with the views and reasoning, in each case, 
adapted to that particular profession or occupation, and which 
ought to regulate the litigant parties themselves. We were 
confident, they would feel, that this being a dispute between 
episcopalians, must be decided upon strict episcopalian prin- 
ciples; that they would examine into those principles from 
the most approved sources, and decide upon them, without 
suffering their minds to be in the least affected by any real 
or apparent coincidence between the tenets of either party, 
and those sanctioned by their own private approbation. I 
shall therefore bring forward and urge the doctrines of our 
church, as if they were implicitly received by those whom I 
address. I shall speak to you as episcopalians, because you 
must, for the time, think and reason as episcopalians, to form 
a correct judgment in this episcopalian controversy. 

Bishop Provoost, having been for many years unquestion- 
ably the diocesan, must continue so, unless by some compe- 
tent power he be divested of that authority. This, it is con- 
tended was done by his resignation. Hence arises the ques- 
tion, can a bishop resign. With that I shall connect another, 
Which, as to the present case* may be considered nearly s^ 



479 

nonymous ; namely, can he divest himself of that authority, 
by his own mere act of resignation, independent of its ac- 
ceptance by any competent body. This last question, I 
state in consequence of what fell from one of the arbitrators 
during the argument of the opposite counsel. A suggestion 
was made, that probably no one would dispute the fact of 
bishop Provoost's resignation's being accepted by the state 
convention, if they were competent to accept it ; I then 
mentioned that bishop Hobart disputed it, and that I meant 
to dispute it also. The fact is, bishop Hobart contends that 
the state convention did not accept it, and had nothing to do 
with either acceptance, or refusal to accept — that bishop Pro- 
voost's diocesan character was completely divested by the 
exertion of his own will in resigning, independently of the 
assent or dissent of the state convention, or of any other 
body, none having any election or authority to resist or con- 
trol that will. These opinions are I think very explicitly 
maintained in the following passages extracted from his pam- 
phlet entitled, a Statement addressed to the Episcopalians, Sec. 
In pages 6 and 9 he says, " bishop Provoost, violating no 
law of the church, resigned his episcopal jurisdiction to the 
convention of the protestant episcopal church in the state of 
New-York, from whom he received it." 

*' The convention, contravening no law of the church, 
acted upon his resignation, considered him no longer as bishop 
of the diocese, and elected Dr. Moore to be diocesan bishop 
in the place of bishop Provoost.'* Again, in page 23 he 
undertakes in terms scarcely commendable, to accuse Mr* 
Jones of intentional falsehood, because he said in his pam- 
phlet that bishop Provoost tendered his resignation : this he 
contends is gross perversion, because bishop Provoost resign- 
ed his episcopal jurisdiction. Now, the difference between 
resigning and tendering a resignation can only be this, that 
resignation is an act in itself consummated and complete, 
which neither wants nor can receive any validity or sanction 
from the acceptance of another, nor be invalidated or im- 
paired by any dissent or refusal to accept : but a resignation 
which requires such acceptance to make it effectual, can only 
he tendered by the party from whom it originates. If the ail* 



480 

thor then wished in this paragraph, to da more than indulge 
in a very acrimonious and offensive slile of controversy, he 
meant to say that the expression " tendered his resignation" 
was incorrect, inasmuch as the resignation of bishop Pro- 
voost was a complete and consummated act, the moment it 
proceeded from himself; and neither required, nor was sus- 
ceptible of receiving validity or sanction from acceptance by 
the convention; nor of being affected or controlled by their 
dissent. Indeed he does not leave this position to rest on 
mere inference ; for after having very triumphantly stated 
bishop Provoost's letter to bishop White, as president of 
the house of bishops, in which are the words, " I resigned 
at the late meeting of our church convention, my jurisdiction 
as bishop of the protestaut episcopal church in the state of 
New-York," he proceeds " the matter then was settled, bi- 
shop Provoost resigned his episcopal jurisdiction to the con- 
vention of the church in this state. And the convention had 
nothing to do but to appoint a successor, or leave the diocese 
destitute of a bishop. His jurisdiction over the church in this 
state then ceased" &c. In page 24 he further enforces the 
same position ; he says that bishop Provoost, " in consequence 
of his resignation, ceased to have any episcopal jurisdiction in 
this diocese," and speaking of the state convention, he says, 
" they had indeed no alternative. Bishop Provoost did not 
ask permission to resign; did not tender his resignation, he 
resigned unequivocally, decisively resigned, and immediate- 
ly left the convention;" and again, p. 25, " The convention 
considered his resignation as complete and effectual." 

The doctriue then of bishop Hobart at least, is that bishop 
Provoost had a right to resign; that the mere exercise and 
expression of his own will, made a complete and perfect act 
of resignation, by force of which he instantly ceased to have 
any episcopal jurisdiction in the diocese; and that the state 
convention had neither the power of accepting nor of prevent- 
ing or refusing the resignation; and to this must of necessity 
be added, that no other body had the power of accepting, re- 
fusing, or at all controIling r that perfect and rightful act of rey 
signal ion. Are these opinions consonant to the pure dpc= 
trines of our church ? Can a bishop resign ? 



481 

I do not pretend to be versed in ecclesiastical authorities 
©r in the history of our church governments. I have there- 
fore reposed myself upon the house of bishops, who declared? 
not made the law, for it is a tenet of our church that the lasv 
on this subject comes from God. I have confided in their 
exposition of the principles regulating the divine institu- 
tion of episcopacy, which they expressed in their message 
to the house of clerical; and lay deputies,* " that tfye con- 
templated resignation was not consistent with ecclesias 
ticai order, or with the practice of episcopal churches in 
any ages, or with the tenor of the office of consecration." 
And I confess I have always thought that when the highest 
authority in our church had spoken an opinion so clear anil 
pointed, it was scarcely permitted to those who professed to 
reverence and obey it, to treat that opinion with the most 
practical contempt, and set it entirely at naught. I scarcely 
expected, after that supreme and venerable body had express? 
5y and solemnly declared their collective opinion, that the 
resignation was not " consistent with ecclesiastical order,, or 
with the practice of episcopal churches in any age, or with the 
tenor of the office of consecration," to hear it unceremonious- 
ly, if not disrespectfully asserted by a young associate, on 
whom the grace of consecration had been but recently shed, 
as is done in the " Statement,!" that " it will not for a mo- 
ment be maintained that the resignation of episcopal juris- 
diction violates any essential principle of episcopacy :■" and 
also, that it is not " pretended that either the laws or the 
practice of our church were opposed to the resignation of 
episcopal jurisdiction, when the convention of 1301 was con- 
vened, at which bishop Provoost; resigned his jurisdiction^' 
What ! was not that which was inconsistent with ecclesiastic 
cal order, contrary to the laws of our church ? was not that 
which was inconsistent with the practice of episcopal churchr 
es in all ages, contrary to the practice of our church? o$ 
was the subterfuge resorted to, that it was not opposed by 
the practice of our individual church ; because, having been 
instituted only a few years before, it had ?iq practice at all ( 

# See p.4d> j See page 2%. 

o 2 



km 

And does not an act which is inconsistent with the tenor of 
ilie office of consecration, violate any essential principles oi 
episcopacy? Where are those essential principles to be found 
and learned ? are none of them to be found in the office oi" 
consecration? is every thing that violates no canon consist- 
ent with the essential principles of episcopacy ? I suppose 
that to be the meaning of bishop Hobart, when he says that 
bishop Provoost's resignation " violated no law of the church;* 
as it undoubtedly is of the opposite counsel, who expressly 
contend for his right to resign, because there is no canon 
against H. The laws which regulate the rights and duties 
of bishops, were antecedent to any canon of any church, and 
are derived from a far different source. A canon is a mere 
temporal regulation of human institution, and being the act 
of an ecclesiastical legislature, may be compared to a statute: 
the " essential principles of episcopacy" are, if I may say 
so, apart of the common law in our church, growing out o£ 
the sacred character of the institution, to be learned from the 
■scriptures, from the apostolic practice, from the history of 
the primitive churches, and from ecclesiastical writers of ap^ 
proved authority. They were imparted to us from the church 
of England, which received them through the Catholic 
church ; and to that they were given, as we are taught, by 
ihe divine author of religion. To those authoritative sources 
of information then, we must apply ourselves, and not to any 
petty canon of yesterday, in order to ascertain whether bi- 
shop Provoost's resignation was consistent with the essentia! 
principles of episcopacy, and violated no law of the church. 
Bishops are considered by us to derive their jurisdiction and 
authority in succession from the apostles, and by the com 
mand of our Saviour. " As my Father sent me, so send I 
you; and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the 
world." Through them is continued to the christian church 
(as we believe) the discharge of those duties commanded by 
him; and which he promised to sanctify with his divine pres- 
ence;, " always, even unto the end of the world." They are, 
in fine, to us, what the apostles w r ere to the first chrk 
tians. We cannot therefore, better test what a bishop may do 
than by considering what an apostle might have done. Let 



485 

me then ask, could one of those Selected Twelve, whom hlfe 
Lord and Master had ordained to preach and to baptize, in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost — to go forth among the Gentiles, to convert and to 
gave — whom he enjoined to suffer all privations, to encoun- 
ter all difficulties, to face all perils, and never to remit 
his labours, until in the fulness of time they should be 
ended and rewarded by a crown of martyrdom. Could he 
have said, I am weary of holding Christ's divine commission s 
and I'll throw it up. — I am tired of preaching the gospel 
among the heathen, of inculcating its inspired doctrines and 
precepts, of opening to untaught ami unbelieving minds, the 
mysterious truths of our Saviour's sacrifice, and our own re- 
demption. I'll stop and be at rest? And if he could not re- 
sign the office conferred on him by his Lord and Master, how 
can one of those, who by the same divine command has sue 
eeeded to his duties, and, if necessary, to his toils, hispains^ 
bis troubles, his dangers, and even to his martyrdom ? No 5 
if the divine nature of episcopacy is not to be treated as a 
pretence of priest-craft, a bishop who holds by apostolic suc- 
cession, cannot free himself from the discharge of those du- 
ties, to which he was ordained by consecration and devoted 
himself by his consecration vows. Nor is his office to be- 
come a mere sinecure, an idle and empty title. As no 
one ever heard of an emeritus apostle, so I cannot without 
necessity admit of an emeritus bishop. While God contin- 
ues to him his bounties and his blessings, while he vouch- 
safes to his servant a competent share of health, strength and 
faculties, they are to be employed in fulfilling those sacred 
duties, to which he has been appointed by divine institution, 
^nd to which he bound himself by accepting the holy office 
A resignation consistent with the continued discharge of 
those duties, such as the surrender of one diocese by a bi- 
shop, whom superior authority has thought fit to translate to 
and place in another diocese, is indeed now universally al- 
lowed, although erenits propriety has been doubted by many. 
Cases may also exist, in which from the failure of the frame, 
from the decay of the physical or the mental powers, a re- 
mission of those laborious duties, or even a resignation may 
be permitted $ and some such instances; grounded on ex*- 



* . 4:8-1 

Irenes necessity, may perhaps be found in church history: of 
that necessitj' however, a competent superior ecclesiastical 
authority must judge, and without its approbation and ex- 
press permission, no consecrated successor of the apostles 
can withdraw himself from the active discharge of his epis- 
copal labours : he cannot of his own free will, throw up his 
superintendence and authority over that portion of the chris^ 
tian church committed, under a saered ordinance, to his spe- 
cial care ; and become a bishop of the church at large, without 
3i)j peculiar jurisdiction; although retaining a competency 
to the performance of episcopal acts. It was not to that he 
was consecrated or appointed; he Would no longer be a 
k'ue successor to the apostolic labourers, and would only en- 
joy an honorary and very useless title, founded on the aban- 
donment of his duties. In a certain sense it may be true, as 
asserted by bishop Hobart,* that " the connection of a bishop 
•vith a particular district is a matter of mere human regula- 
tion," but it is essential to the utility of the institution itself, 
arid conformable to the practice of the apostles themselves 
after the christian church became diffused and necessarily 
subdivided* that every bishop shall always be connected 
frith and have jurisdiction arid government over some parti- 
cular district. As a genera!, if not an universal position, 
therefore, I beg leave respectfully to adopt that laid down by 
*he house of bishop!?, that a resignation by which a bishop 
Would free himself from all connexion with any particular 
district whatsoever, and make himself a mere bishop at large, 
without an appropriate jurisdiction, is not consistent with ec- 
clesiastical order, or with the practice of episcopal churches 
in any age, or with the tenor of the office of consecration ; 
and most explicitly to deny the doctrine deductible from, if not 
kssly contained in bishop Kobart's " Statement/ 5 that such 
H resignation neither violates any law or practice of our 
.bureh, nor an}' essential principle of episcopacy: and that 
a bishop can divest himself of his episcopal jurisdiction, or 
exonerate himself from any part of his duties by his own 
?>iere ret of resignation, independently of the assent or dis- 
sent of any other body, none having any election or auth«= 
vUy to resist or control his will. 

* Statement, p. 22 



48£ ' 

U musi, however, be admitted, that this very unsound 
and untenable doctrine was not brought forward and supported 
before you in its full extent; for feeling and acknowledging 
the necessity of an acceptance to make the resignation com- 1 
plete and effectual, the opposite counsel contended that bi* 
? hop Provoosf s resignation was accepted by the stalo con* 
Mention — and on this question of fact, they have again sepa- 
rated themselves from their fellow labourer in the same vine* 
yard, bishop Robart; he contends that there was no accept- 
ance, and his testimony, on this fact, is the more important s 
as he was an active member of that convention, and had the 
best opportunities of knowing the views arid intention of 
that body. Before I refer to his account of what was done 
by the state convention, permit me to premise an observa- 
tion, the correctness of which is, I think, manifest. Ac- 
ceptance, to operate in completing and confirming a resigna- 
tion, must be a voluntary act, done with the intention of 
confirmation, and under the knowledge, that the party accept- 
ing had the right, if it thought fit, to reject the resignation^ 
Nothing done in ignorance of the right to refuse assent; 01% 
under the idea of possessing no option, and of being obliged 
to act in a certain way, can give to the resignation any sanc= 
ttoii or validity. Precisely of this last description, however* 
w r cre the acts of the state conventions Bishop Hobart, in 
his " Statement^"* says, " the convention considered hi$ 
resignation as complete and effectual;'''' and he asks, " what 
stronger proof could there be, that the convention considered 
the episcopal office vacant, than their resolving to proceed td 
the election of a suitable person, to be recommended for con- 4 
secration, as bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the 
state of New-York, and afterwards electing Dr* Moore for 
that station." In the same page, he again uses nearly the 
same phraseology — " the convention then, after the resigna- 5 
tion of bishop Provoost, considered the church as destitute of 
a bishop, and they proceeded to fill the vacancy in the bishop- 
ric" And again, in page 6, " This convention, contravene 
m% no law of the church, acted upon his resignation, const- 

* See p* 25, 



486 

ieredhim as wo longer bishop of the diocese, and elected Dr 
Moore, to be diocesan bishop in the place of bishop Pro* 
voost." Now, let me ask, what is the meaning of the ex- 
pressions, " considered his resignation as complete and ef- 
fectual;" "considered the episcopal office vacant;" "pro- 
ceeded to fill the vacancy in the bishopric ;" and " acted 
upon bis resignation ?" Are they not intended very unequi- 
vocally to mark, that the convention considered the vacancy 
as completed by an act over which they had no control, and 
which they had no option to reject or invalidate; or, to use 
his own words, that " they liad indeed no alternative ," they 
V had nothing to do but to appoint a successor, or leave the 
diocese destitute of a bishdp?" This testimony of bishop 
Hobart accords exactly with the proceedings of the conven- 
tion, to be found in the documents.* The journal states 
as a fact, that bishop Provoost resigned his episcopal juris- 
diction : on that, no resolution was taken or proposed to ac- 
cept or reject his resignation; but, it having, in their opinion, 
altered the situation of the church, a committee was appoint- 
ed to consider, and report the measures to be pursued in that 
altered situation : the committee made a report, in which it 
was not pretended that they accepted the resignation, or 
that their acceptance was necessary; on the contrary, they 
put the validity of the resignation entirely on bishop Pro- 
voost's own act. " The right rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D." 
(omitting even the title bishop, J " having declared tliat he re- 
signed" &c. " The convention return their thanks to the 
bishop, and whilst they regret that he should have judged 
himself under the necessity of quitting, so suddenly, the ex- 
ercise of the episcopal office," &c. A resolution having 
been proposed, containing a very unwarrantable assumption 
of power, which might have been supposed to imply an as- 
sertion, that the right of conferring the office of bishop, and 
therefore, of accepting the resignation, was in the conven- 
tion, by the words, " choosing a suitable person to be conse- 
crated as a bishop, and to have the charge of the protestant 
episcopal church in the state of New-York," the resolution 

* See v. 37, 33, 



w 

was rejected, and a less objectionable one adopted, only* 
speaking of " the election of a suitable person, to be recom- 
mended for consecration, as bishop of the protestant episcopal 
church in this state." Indeed, the convention seem to have 
very clearly and correctly felt, that whether bishop Pro-^ 
voost's resignation was good or not, was a matter of which 
they had no cognizance. If any ecclesiastical body had a 
right to accept or reject it, they were not that body, and 
they therefore carefully abstained from any expression or act, 
susceptible of being considered as an assumption or exercise 
of any such power. 

It is now, however, contended before the arbitrators, not 
only that the state convention accepted the resignation, but 
that they were the body rightfully authorized to receive and 
accept it. My learned friend who spoke last, has chiefly 
urged this doctrine, and has sought to support it by metaphy 
sical arguments, in which he has eminently displaj^ed the 
art and subtlety of a lawyer, but not the tenets or r linciples 
of an episcopalian. I do not mean to say that he is not 
one, but his reasoning is of a cast and character, perhaps, 
not injudiciously calculated to be more favourably received 
by those to whom it was immediately addressed. All the 
authorities which I read to the arbitrators a few days since,* 
put it beyond a doubt, that the resignation must be made to, 
and accepted by his metropolitan, before it can have any ef- 
fect. This position having been incontrovertibly established, 
the opposite counsel has sought to surmount the difficulty it 
creates, by attempting to maintain that the state convention 
is the metropolitan. A metropolitan, consisting of eccle= 
siastics, none of whom was ever consecrated or vested with 
episcopal powers; and of lay deputies, none of whom was 
ever ordained! May I be permitted, with the utmost respect 

* Vide from p. 270 to 273; and also 3 Burn's Ecclesiastical, 
Law, title resignation ; and 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, p. 
382: ("both of which expressly say, that " all resignations must 
be made to some superior, and that, therefore, a bishop must 
resign to his metropolitan," J which were, by mistake, omitted 
to be mentioned among the authorities in the proper place, 



for those before whom I speak, to call it a presbyterian epis- 
copacy, and something savouring of a new sect. It ismot to 
be found in the religion of my fathers, nor in that, into 
which I was born by baptism. Assuredly, the stream of my 
learned friend's episcopal opinions, has flowed through other 
waters ; it may seem clear to the view, but it is mixed and 
brackish. 

Let me examine the nature of this doctrine, that the state 
convention is the metropolitan. What is a metropolitan? 
Precisely an archbishop. And are the lay delegates arch- 
bishops, or component parts of an arch-bishop ? According 
to the tenets of our church, can any number of unordained 
and unconsecrated persons, coming together in consequence 
of election by congregations, be competent to discbarge the 
sacred office, which we hold to be derived from the apostolic 
stock, and to be filled only by continued succession from 
them ? Can episcopal powers and jurisdiction be conferred 
by any tling but the holy imposition of hands? My learned 
friend's elective and representative lay episcopacy may seem 
to harmonize with our civil government ; but much as I ad- 
mire in it, and in every thing of human regulation, the prin- 
ciples of sound democracy, yet, so long as I admit that the 
origin of our characteristic religious institution is not of man, 
| must adhere to the divine ordinance. I cannot be a repub- 
lican in religion, unless I should change and turn presbyte- 
rian. 

The opposite counsel, further maintain the right of the 
convention to accept bishop Provoosfs resignation, by the 
following chain of reasoning: Episcopal jurisdiction over a 
particular diocese, is human : suppose the state were to be 
subdivided into several dioceses, what would become of the 
jurisdiction in the present bishop of the state, over the parts 
set off and placed under the care of other bishops ? Episco- 
pal jurisdiction then may be taken away by human means- 
it was conferred by the state convention; and into the same 
hands that gave it, may it be resigned. Everj r one of these 
positions deserves a remark. It is not correctly true, accord- 
ing to our tenets, that episcopal jurisdiction over a diocese, 
is human. The jurisdiction itself we hold to be divine; its 



480 

powers and duties we consider of that character; but the ex A 
tent and limits of the diocese are of human regulation, and 
ma v therefore be modified according to our notions of policy 
or convenience : it may therefore be a thing of human enact- 
ment, to ascertain the extent of territory over which a bishop 
shall have jurisdiction ; but it is essentially connected with 
ecclesiastical order, and the divine nature of the institution 
itself, that a bishop shall watch and preside over a particular 
portion of Christ's flock. I may therefore admit, that if the 
state were subdivided into different dioceses, the jurisdiction 
of the present bishop of the state would cease over the parts 
set off and placed under the care of other bishops ; although 
I do not conceive that such would necessarily be the fact ; 
for, if I am not mistaken, the bishop of the state, unless 
otherwise regulated by the competent authority, would then 
become a metropolitan with suffragan bishops, and would still 
retain his jurisdiction in a metropolitan form over the whole 
state. But it may be pertinent to the question of the powers 
of a state convention, to remark, that such an alteration of 
dioceses cannot be effected by that body, and does not fall 
within their powers: it must be an act of the church at large. 
No state convention can, by its uncontrolled act, pour an 
indefinite number of bishops into the house of bishopc 
Even then if I were to admit that episcopal jurisdiction cam 
be taken away by human means, I should still be warranted 
in contending that it can never be taken away by a state con- 
vention. But the position itself requires considerable modi 
fications. Episcopal jurisdiction can certainly be taken away?. 
and utterly annihilated in an individual, aa a punishment of 
crimes and offences; but this must be done by those who, 
although themselves human, act under a divine commission, 
and therein exercise a portion of their own divinely ordained 
jurisdiction. A particular portion of territory can also be 
withdrawn from a particular diocese; but that is not a de- 
struction of episcopal jurisdiction, it is only a modification 
of its application, in a matter of human arrangement ; and 
even that cannot be effected without the house of bishops, it 
being a part of the supreme government of the church, 

*p2 



*90 

Jjut, the great error of the argument lies in the position 
that the episcopal jurisdiction was conferred by the state con- 
vention. The same assertion is made by bishop Hobart in 
his " Statement,"* although it seems to me without any bear- 
ing on his reasoning, that the resignation was in itself com- 
plete, and required no acceptance for its consummation. II 
that were true, it would be very immaterial to enquire, by 
whom bishop Provoost was invested with his office. In the 
argument of the opposite counsel, however, the error of this 
position forms a fatal defect. The state convention gives 
nothing but the initiative of election, and letters recommen- 
datory; it designates the person upon whom it recommends 
that the office should be conferred ; but it confers nothing- 
It stands exactly in the situation of the dean and chapter in 
England. With regard to them, I read to the arbitrators, 
from Burns 5 s Ecclesiastical Law, (title resignation,) that a 
bishop cannot resign to the dean and chapter; but only to the 
metropolitan. To this analogy it is objected, that the dean 
and chapter are only the formal electors, that the king is the 
real elector, and that to him the resignation is in fact made ; 
for it is made to the metropolitan, who is his agent or instru 
ment for receiving it. The reason assigned in Burns, for 
Hot resigning to the dean and chapter, is very different — that 
resignation can be made to a superior only^ which the dean 
and chapter certainly never were, even when their power of 
election was real: and the reason he assigns why the resig- 
nation must be made to the metropolitan, is not that he is 
the agent or instrument of the king, who is the real elector, 
hut that he is himself the superior, who approves and con- 
firms the election. Further, although by a statute in Eng- 
land, the power of election was in fact transferred from the 
dean and chapter to the king, all the forms of church govern- 
ment and discipline were retained : for that reason the cong* 
a elire was stiil preserved, and the appearance of an elec- 
tion kept up: for the same reason, if a bishop's resignation 
had been made to the dean and chapter, they would have 
been continued the king's agent and instrument for receiving 

* Seep. 21. 



491 

if v as well as for making the election. A statute took away 
their right of election, and transferred it to the king. There 
is no statute, canon, regulation or ordinance, civil or eccle- 
siastical, directing, that from thenceforth bishops should re* 
sign to their metropolitan, and not to the dean and chapter 
as formerly. Such a change could not have been effected 
without some statute, canon or ordinance ; from whence It 
follows, that the incapacity of the dean and chapter to re- 
ceive a resignation, is not a change made in consequence of 
their having lost their real right of election, but that the 
same was also the rule, when they enjoyed that right in its 
utmost extent; which makes the analogy between them and 
the state convention complete, 

I have said that the state convention gives nothing but the 
initiative of election, and letters recommendatory. A few 
observations will demonstrate this position. According to 
the rules prescribed by the 3d general canon,* the letters re- 
commendatory of the state convention, are to be presented 
to the house of clerical and lay deputies, in general conven- 
tion,* and the house of clerical and lay deputies must also, 
on their part, give a certificate in favour of the person desig- 
nated to be a bishop. Suppose the house of clerical and lay 
deputies should disapprove of the state convention's choice, 
and refuse their testimony; no power or authority could force 
them to retract, and the election by the state convention 
would be a nullity. With what justice then could it be pre- 
tended that the state convention had conferred the office of 
bishop on the person they designated, who never was, and 
never could be a bishop, unless the house of clerical and lay 
deputies should alter their opinion of him, and also join in 
letters recommendatory. Suppose the bishops, notwithstand- 
ing the certificates of both bodies, should deem the person 
designated not of sufficient learning and piety, could he re- 
turn back to the state convention, or to any other tribunal, 
and apply for a mandamus or any other process to compel 
his admission and consecration? What ecclesiastical autho- 

* Seep, 34, 35, 



rity is there to control the bishops, or to give efficacy to this 
election by the state convention, which is said to confer the 
office? The house of bishops, gentlemen say^ can do no- 
thing in the business but by consecration, which is to follow 
on the production of the regular certificates. This position 
seems to ine most extraordinary,' and shows a difference be- 
tween their notions of church government and those of the 
most approved episcopal authorities, which is inadmissible, 
and almost inexplicable. All those which I formerly cited 
to the arbitrators,* and to them I might add every approved 
writer on the subject, (if the extreme length of this address 
did not prevent me from multiplying quotations,) lay it down 
that no man can be a bishop of a diocese without the appro- 
bation and confirmation of the metropolitan, or of the provin- 
cial synod. I may more particularly refer to Potter on 
Church Government,! who, after stating the particulars spe- 
cified by the 4th canon of the council of Nice, says, 
" whejice it is manifest that the consent of the metropolitan , 
and tlu majority of the comprovincial bishops, was then required 
to the appointment of any bishop, before he could be ordain- 
ed." And to Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church 4 
speaking of the powers and privileges of metropolitans, he 
says, " no bishop was to be elected or ordained without their 
consent and approbation : otherwise the canons pronounce 
both the election and consecration null. The *vpos or ratifi- 
cation of all that is dene, says the council of Nice, belongs 
to the metropolitan in every province, and again, if any bi- 
chop is made without the consent of the metropolitan, this 
great synod pronounces such an one to be no bishop. The 
same rule is repeated in the councils of Antioch, Laodicea, 
Arias, Turin, Sardica, Ephesus and Chalcedon;" and in 
sect. 14, he says, " but here I must observe that this power 
of metropolitans was not arbitrary. For, though no bishop 
was to be elected Gr ordained without their consent, yet they 
Lad no negative voice in the matter, but were to be deter- 

* Seep. 270 to 272, and 27 S, 279. 
t Chan. v. p. 467, % Book ii. chap. 16, § 12, 



mined and concluded by the major part of a provincial sy- 
nod." In England, Gibson lays it down,* that the confirma- 
tion of the bishop in his province, of right belongs to this 
metropolitan. And such undoubtedly is the rule of the 
church in that country. From it sprung our own church, 
not by a forcible and hostile convulsion, nor in consequence 
of any religious dissatisfaction; but, like the voluntary sepa- 
ration of a province, which from considerations of justice, 
and of mutual convenience, has been erected, with the con- 
sent of the parent country, into a distinct state; in which 
the antecedently existing laws, until changed by competent 
authority, are the birthright of every member of the new 
community. On any subject for which those laws had ade- 
quately provided, no man could be permitted to say, that as 
to that matter, nothing was prohibited or restrained in the 
newly created state, since its own immediate legislature had 
passed no statute or ordinance respecting it. The answer 
would be, the law that regulates it was prior to the existence 
of our state ; it comes to us by inheritance from our fathers, 
and we brought it with us into this association. So is it with 
our ecclesiastical government. In organizing and becoming 
members of the protestant episcopal church in America, no 
one considered himself as becoming a member of a new reli- 
gion, or as adopting a different form or rules of ecclesiastical 
government; except so far forth as depended on the con- 
nexion in England between church and state, and the regu- 
lations in that country, which were produced by the king's 
being head of the church. These were all necessarily re- 
jected as inapplicable to our situation ; but in every other 
respect, the rules and laws of our mother church, where they 
can be applied, are the common law of our own religious as- 
sociation. 

This view of our relation to the church of England is 
conformable to the account of the origin and progress of the 
prote3tant episcopal church in the United States of America, 
published in the American edition of Rees's New Cyclopae- 
dia;, as a subdivision of the article church. The account is 

* Codex, voL 1. p. 128, 



*9* 

most peculiarly entitled to attention and respect, because it 
is known to have come from the pen of bishop White. He 
states the steps taken by the first convention in 1785, for 
procuring an episcopate from England : among other things, 
" they addressed the arch-bishops and bishops of England, 
stating that the episcopal church in the United States had 
been severed, by a civil revolution, from the jurisdiction of 
the parent church in England ; acknowledging the favours 
formerly received from the bishops of London in particular, 
and from the arch-bishops and bishops in general, through 
the medium of the society for propagating the gospel ; de- 
claring their desire to perpetuate among them the principles of 
the church of England, in doctrine, discipline, and worship : 
and praying that their lordships would consecrate to the epis- 
copacy, those persons who should be sent with that view, 
from the churches in any of the states respectively." 

From the foregoing reasoning, I think it follows, that wiie- 
ther we look to the primitive churches, or to that from which 
we are but lately separated, it is essential to the validity of 
a bishop's appointment} that his election should be approved 
of by some person or body, having superior episcopal autho- 
rity. In the primitive churches, (and perhaps in every church 
not connected with the civil power, legally established) by 
the provincial synod guiding the metropolitan, in England, 
where synods are nearly prohibited, by the metropolitan 
alone. This rule, then, required no article in the constitu= 
tion nor special canon to establish it in our church any more 
than it required an article in the constitution, or a canon to 
establish the office of bishop itself. Both existed there prioi 
to any constitution or canon, and the only subject for discus* 
sion in this case can be, in what person or body is that con 
firmatory power vested : it must be a person or body entireh/ 
episcopal; there is no person or body entirely episcopal and 
superior to an individual diocesan bishop but the house of 
bishops, and therefore of necessity, that and that only, can 
at present, be the body by which the bishop elect must be ap- 
proved of, and his election confirmed. Indeed, when our 
church organization shall have been more completely de- 
veloped, when perhaps there may be metropolitans in th? 



•495 

states, and will be provincial synods in the collective bodies 
of the bishops of those states, and when by that develope- 
merit of our church organization, the house of bishops of 
the church at large shall be, what in time it must be, the 
great national synod, then a canon may be requisite to de- 
cide whether the confirmatory power shall rest, as in England* 
with the metropolitan of each state, or be exercised as in 
the primitive churches by the state synods. But now the 
house of bishops, as being the only superior episcopal body, 
possesses in itself metropolitan powers over every individual 
bishop; it is for the same reason a provincial synod, and as 
the highest episcopal body in the church, it is, and always 
will be the national synod. 

In the argument of the opposite counsel, when observing 
on the authorities I have referred to, it was urged that the 
house of clerical and lay deputies was the provincial synod, 
and therefore that its letters recommendatory were the con= 
formation of the provincial synod, and the authority for any 
three bishop3 to consecrate. If that were true, still the state 
convention would only possess the initiative of election, and 
would not be the body to which a bishop should resign, or 
by which his resignation could be accepted ; of course bishop 
Provoost's resignation should have been made to, and accept- 
ed by that house, before it was valid. Even this position, 
therefore, would answer the purposes of my argument, but it is 
entirely untenable, and founded on a misunderstanding of the 
term synod. A synod in our episcopal churches never is and 
never was any thing but an assembly or council of bishops. 
In support of this assertion I appeal to Broughton's Historical 
Dictionary of all Religions, title synod.* The general con- 
vention is the ecclesiastical legislature ot the whole church, 
for temporal regulations concerning it, and to this, lay dele- 
gates and presbyters of the lower order, may well be admit- 
ted ; but with spiritual matters, merely jurisdictional, none 
but bishops can interfere; the house of bishops does not take 
cognizance of them, as a constituent part of the convention, 
tmt by authority independent of any of our canons or articles 

* See page 279, 280, 



496 # 

of the church constitution, and derived to it from the practice 
of the primitive churches, and consistent with the essential 
principles of ecclesiastical order. Under that practice and 
that order, and consistent with the essential principles 
of episcopacy, neither the state conventions, nor the 
house of clerical and lay delegates, both consisting of lay- 
men and unconsecrated priests, can exercise or interfere 
with any episcopal act: the ratification of an election to a 
vacant see, is indispensable, and has been in all ages an epis- 
copal act ; therefore, there is no existing body in our church, 
other than the house of bishops competent to exercise it, 
and of course, they and they only have the power to do so. 
Let us test still further this extraordinary doctrine, that 
the house of bishops have nothing to do with the election of 
a bishop, but by consecration ; and of course, as three bishops 
can consecrate, the house of bishops, as such, have nothing 
to do with it. The error of this assertion consists in con- 
founding together confirmation and consecration, or in keep- 
ing out of view the necessity of confirmation to the validity of 
the election. This will appear from the statement of one or 
two cases. In the course of a short time, it is expected and 
hoped by those who wish for the extension and increase of the 
church, that every state will have its own bishop ; in that 
case the house of bishops would consist of at least seventeen : 
suppose it to consist as it shortly will, of seven, and a per= 
son with the requisite certificates to be presented to them; 
but that four out of seven deemed him improper, and refused 
their approbation, could the three dissentients consecrate 
him, in despite of the house of bishops, and fix him in the 
diocese ? Some of the writers I have already referred to* 
expressly say, that such a consecration would in itself be 
null; and they state that to have been declared by the Nicene 
council, which is allowed by every episcopal church to be of 
the highest and most venerable authority. The episcopal 
church of Scotland too, when by its severance from the civil 
government, it ceased to be legally established, and was 
under the necessity of restoring itself to the practice of thr 

* Seep. 271, 272. 



4D7 

primitive churches, made the following canon, conformably 
to that practice, and to be found in Skinner's Ecclesiastical 
History of Scotland,* canon 1st, " That no person shall be 
consecrated a bishop without the consent and approbation of 
the majority of the bishops ; and that if any three or more 
bishops, not being a majority, shall take upon them without 
such consent, to consecrate any person to that office, such 
consecration shall be null and void ; and both the consccrator 
and the consecrated shall be hoi den as schismatics." Again, 
suppose a bishop coming from any foreign episcopal churchy 
or from any other state (and of course consecrated) to be 
elected by the state convention, and testimonials given to 
him by that body, and by the house of clerical and lay depu- 
ties, if under the third general canon any certificates would 
In such a case be requisite, could this bishop assume the juris- 
diction of the diocese, without the consent and approbation 
of the house of bishops? He would have that which the op- 
posite counsel consider as a complete election, and also con- 
eecration; he would want only that, which they say is noth- 
ing, the confirmation of the election by the house of bishops. 
The necessity of that confirmation is fully shown by the 
quotations which I formerly submited to the arbitrators from 
Bingham, Barrow, and bishop Potter and Skinner ;f but I 
particularly select the citation from Skinner's Ecclesiastical 
History of Scotland, vol. 2. p. 628, relative to the transactions 
after the death of bishop Rose, as furnishing a very striking 
proof to the contrary. The connexion of the protestant 
episcopal church with the state in that country having been 
dissolved, and there being great danger from the age of the 
then bishops, that the episcopal succession would fail, a step 
was taken, dictated by necessity, and the peculiar circum- 
stances in which they were placed, but the regularity of 
which was very doubtful, and very much disputed ; they con- 
secrated bishops of the church at large, to whom no peculiar 
diocesan jurisdiction was assigned. In this way, at different 
times bishops Sage, Fullarton, Falconer, Millar and Irvine 
were consecrated. After the death of bishop Rose, bishop 
of Edinburgh, the proceedings took place contained in that 
* See vol. 2. p. 655. f Seep. 273, 274. 

Hq2 



*98 

eitaiion, and which I shall take the liberty of again reading, 
as it furnishes matter for many observations applicable to 
this question. " On that melancholy event, the clergy of 
Edinburgh met to deliberate upon their affairs, and advise 
among themselves, whether it was proper now to make any 
advance towards the choice of a successor ; which having 
been the primitive mode, they concluded was their privilege, 
now the connexion of the church with the state, which had 
brought in another method, was dissolved. This was car- 
ried in the affirmative. Upon the 28th of April they had ano- 
ther meetings when the instruments of consecration of the 
several bishops were laid before them," (i. e. before the meet- 
ing of the clergy of Edinburgh,) " by bishop Falconer, who 
in the name of his brethren said, that though they were bi- 
shops of this church, intended for preserving the episcopal 
succession in it, yet they did not pretend to have jurisdic- 
tion over any particular place or district ; and therefore ad- 
vised them to pitch upon a proper person to take the manage- 
ment of their affairs. So the next day, they convened a 
third time, and with all the formality possible and proper for 
such a business, elected bishop John Fullarton to be bishop 
of Edinburgh, which was immediately accepted by him, and 
ratified by his three brethren, with this limitation, that he 
should not as bishop of Edinburgh succeed to the vicarious 
metropolitical powers, which bishop Rose had exercised, 
but should only have a privilege to convocate his brethren, 
when the exigencies of the church required, and preside in 
iuch meetings." Other instances of the exercise of this 
right of ratifying and controlling elections, by the college of 
bishops, and of regular submission, on the part of the pres- 
byters in the several dioceses, are to be found in the same 
historian.* But to confine myself to the case of the bishop 
of Edinburgh, he was already a consecrated bishop, he was 
as such elected by the clergy of the diocese to have jurisdic- 
tion there ; and yet, although he was consecrated, it was 
accessary that his election should be ratified by the other bi- 
shops being the college of bishops or synod ; and (which I 
particularly to fix on the minds of the arbitrators, for 
* See vol 2. pages 644, 645> 



499 

Another part of this discussion ; whether the house of bishops 
could modify or partially control the election of bishop 
Moore by the st#te convention) although bishop Fullarton 
was elected to a see, having previously had vicarious metro- 
political powers, by an election purporting to confer on him 
the full extent of the episcopal powers, exercised by his pre- 
decessor bishop Rose, yet the college of bishops annexed to 
their ratification, a limitation, destructive of almost all those 
powers. In these proceedings the strictest attention was paid 
to the practice of the primitive churches ; and in conformity 
to it, the same church passed a canon to be found in the same 
book, p. 656, # canon 5th, " That if the presbyters of any 
district shall happen to elect a person already vested with the 
episcopal character, the bishop so elected, shall have no juris- 
diction over that district, until his election be confirmed by the 
majority of the bishops ; and if they shall elect a presbyter 
of whose fitness for that office the bishops shall declare they 
have sufficient reasons not to be satisfied, in that case the 
presbyters shall be required by the bishops to proceed to 
a new election." Do not all those quotations and arguments 
establish the position, that every election of a bishop, before 
it can have effect, must be ratified by the house of bishops, 
as possessing the whole of the episcopal power and jurisdic- 
tion superior to that of each individual diocesan, and that 
such superior episcopal power, necessarily exists in every 
episcopal church ? Thk arbitrators then may judge, with 
what surprise, I read in the testimony of the rev. Mr. Wifc 
kins,f the following passage, ■" The house of bishops hag 
not, in the opinion of the deponent, any power, as a college 
of bishops separately in this country. 55 Such a power can only 
be exercised by bishops; its jurisdictional parts cannot bef 
participated with the house of clerical and lay delegates, who 
have no episcopal character; its existence is necessary to 
ecclesiastical order 5 where then is it ? To every well organ- 
?.zed association, there'must not only be a body to make laws ; 
but also one to exercise jurisdiction. In the general conven* 
^ion ? we recognize the legislature of the protestant episcopal 

# Seep. 275. j See p. 241. 



50$ 

cJhurchin the United States; but where is the person or body 
having its supreme episcopal jurisdiction ? Where can that 
reside except in the house of bishops, acting separately as a 
synod or college of bishops ? The objection against the ex 
istence of this supreme episcopal jurisdiction in the house of 
bishops, rests solely on the same argument I have already 
observed upon, so far as it relates to the power of ratifying 
the election, that it is given by no canon or article of the 
constitution. No canon or article of the constitution gives 
or pretends to give to bishops, their portion of episcopal juris- 
diction, and yet they incontestibly possess it. No canon or 
article of the constitution prescribes where the metropolitan 
or synodical powers, as to spiritual matters, or those exclu- 
sively belonging to episcopal jurisdiction are vested, and yet 
they must vest somewhere — no canon or article of the con 
stitution has given them to the state convention, for which 
they are now claimed, nor to the house of clerical and lay 
delegates, both being incapable of exercising the consecrated 
office. No canon or article of the constitution has taken away 
that episcopal jurisdiction from the only existing episcopal 
body in the church, to whom, according to the practice ot 
primitive churches and established ecclesiastical order, it 
would rightfully belong. In short, no canon or article of 
the constitution has pretended to meddle with it at all; and 
why ? because it required no enactment for its perfect regula- 
tion ; the right to it in some episcopal body or other, was 
derived from the common law of our church, and was ante- 
rior to any canon, or to the constitution itself, and there 
were no two episcopal bodies or persons existing in our 
♦:hurch, between whom there could be any collision on the 
.subject. 

From the canons, however, is drawn an argument against 
the possession of any ratifying power by the house of bishops. 
By the 5th general canon,* it is provided, that " if during 
the recess of the general convention, the church in any state 
or diocese should be desirous of the consecration of a bishop, 
the standing committee of the church in such state or dio 

* Seepage 35, 36. 



SGI 

cese, may, by the president, or by some person or persons 
specially appointed, communicate the desire to the standing 
committees of the churches in the different states, together 
with copies of the necessary testimonials; and if the major 
number of the standing committees shall consent to the pro- 
posed consecration, the standing committee of the state or 
diocese concerned, may communicate the evidences of such 
consent, together with the other testimonials, to any three 
bishops of "the church, who may thereon proceed to the con- 
secration* The evidences of the consent of the different 
standing committees shall be in the form presented for the 
house of clerical and lay deputies in general convention; 
and, without the aforesaid requisites, no consecration shall 
take place during the recess of the general convention*" It 
may perhaps be questionable whether this canon applies 
to any case, except where all the prescribed requisites of 
election and confirmation had been previously procured ; in 
which case, it certainly could not intrench on the confirming; 
power of the house of bishops; but I shall consider it as ap- 
plying to cases where the house of bishops had never been 
consulted as to the fitness of the person elected. In that 
view, it would also appear to be a case in which the house 
of clerical and lay deputies had also not been consulted , nor 
even the state convention \ but as if the whole matter were 
managed by the standing committees and three bishops, 
Suppose, however, the election to have been made by the 
state convention, it is evident the standing committees of 
the different states are in the place of the house of clerical 
and lay deputies. This is a canon making arrangement for 
cases of emergency, if not of necessity; and it is suscepti- 
ble of alteration, whenever the number of bishops shall be in- 
creased, so as to make an augmentation from three, mentioned 
in the canon, to four, five, or six, &c. advisable. Perhaps 
that time is now arrived ; but, until lately at least three were 
a majority, and indeed the whole effective number of the 
iiouse of bishops. The three bishops, mentioned in the 
canon, may, or may not consecrate at their discretion. 
These things being understood, what is the nature of this 
canon ? That unnecessary trouble shall not be given to the 



502 

ieiierable, but aged and infirm persons, who are endowed 
with the episcopal character, by compelling them to con- 
vene in a collective body at extraordinary times ; that three 
being the majority, and nearly the totality of the college of 
bishops, may give their approbation or confirmation of the 
election, without meeting for that purpose : but it still meant 
to preserve the rule, that the consecration shall not be with- 
out the consent of the majority of the bishops. The only 
rights which have been infringed upon are those ofcthe house 
of clerical and lay deputies, and perhaps of the state con- 
vention. 

If I do not greatly deceive myself, I have incontrovertibly 
established those positions, that in the appointment of a bi- 
shop, the state convention possesses nothing but the initia° 
tive of election, which is merely incohate, until seconded by 
another clerical and lay body in the general convention, and 
consummated by the confirmation of the house of bishops. 
That therefore the state convention neither conferred upon* 
nor invested bishop Provoost with that office ; and that it 
had no right to receive, to accept, or to refuse the resigna- 
tion of bishop Provoost, either upon that ground, or as pos- 
sessing metropolitan powers ; and that accordingly, it did no 
act which was, or was intended to be an acceptauce of the 
resignation; but left it to stand on its own merits, and to be 
dealt with by the proper ecclesiastical authority. The same 
arguments would apply to the house of clerical and lay depu- 
ties; but it is not pretended that they did any official act ca- 
pable of being considered as an acceptance. They certainly 
felt they had nothing to do with it, and took no notice of it* 
because it was their duty to submit to the decision of the 
house of bishops on that subject. The house of bishops did 
take cognizance of bishop Provoost's act, and of the initia- 
tive act of the state convention ; and it now remains to con- 
sider the nature and extent of their power and of their acts. 

But before I begin that part of my case, let*me put out of 
the way a very singular observation which I had nearly forgot 
ten. It has been said that as bishop Provoost received his 
office from the arch-bishop of Canterbury, it is to him, and not 
to the house of bishops that the resignation should have beer 



£03 

made. Even if that were correct, it would still follow that 
2io effectual resignation had been made, and that bishop Pro- 
voost is still the diocesan. The truth, however, is, that 
when a new member of the general episcopal church is to be 
organized, the first acts towards it may be done by foreign 
bishops, whose jurisdiction extends to every destitute part of 
the christian church, by which it is solicited. When the ne- 
cessity ceases, and more appropriate bishops are appointed, 
the jurisdiction, which grew out of that necessity also ceases 9 
and the whole of the episcopal jurisdiction is vested in the 
newly appointed successors to the apostles, in the same man- 
ner as if that individual church had been immemorially con- 
stituted. If I might apply to the case one of our technical 
law phrases, I would compare it to the rule of holding a.feu- 
dum novum ut antiquum. Adopting the analogy I have al- 
ready used, of a province, voluntarily and by mutual con- 
sent, separating from its parent state, and becoming .inde- 
pendent, I may observe that although the known and neces- 
sary officers, whose duties were intimately connected with 
the adopted and antecedently existing laws, might well be 
allowed to continue in the new state under their previous ap- 
pointments; yet, in every future transaction, they must act 
with the new government as if it were the immediate foun- 
tain of their authority. Besides, we claim the right of ac- 
cepting or rejecting the resignation for the house of bishops, 
not on the ground of their conferring the office, (that view of 
the question having originated with our adversaries,) but be- 
cause in the ecclesiastical order of our church, they are the 
immediate episcopal superior of each individual bishop. 
This undoubtedly the arch-bishop of Canterbury is not, and 
they are. 

As to the nature and extent of the powers of that house, 
I trust I have already said enough. Whether we consider 
them as possessing metropolitan jurisdiction over every dio- 
cesan, as a college of bishops, as a provincial or national 
synod, there is no episcopal body which can contest with 
them the supreme episcopal authority of the protestant epis^ 
copal church in the United States. Whatever must be done 
in any of those characters, for the present at least, can only 



be done by them. The acceptance of a bishop's resignation, 
and the judging of its propriety is of that kind. To meet 
the acts of the house of bishops, upon which I am next to 
observe, it has been urged that their acts are no law of the 
church. This is very pointedly and triumphantly put by bi- 
shop Hobart in his " Statement."* His argument is, that to 
a law the concurrence of both houses is necessary, and that 
the house of clerical and lay deputies gave no concurrence, 
He also fortifies himself by an expression, I think over cau- 
tiously used by bishop White in a letter published in the 
" Statement,"! " Now, although I was a party to that in- 
strument, and still think it was founded on correct principles, 
yet I cannot affirm that the act of the bishops, with the cir- 
cumstance of there being no opposition on the part of the 
other house, rendered the measure a law of the church." I 
at once agree to the position 5 it is not a law of the church, 
it claims, and can have no validity as such. Bishop Hobart 
calls it a mere opinion, having no binding efficacy. In that 
he is incorrect; it is a decision by the only competent tribu- 
nal* and applies to an individual case the antecedently exist- 
ing and long established laws of every christian episcopal 
church. Do you legislate when you, as judges of the su- 
preme court, apply the laws of real property to the particu- 
lar title of any estate ? By what perversion of mind was it 
possible ever to consider as an act of legislation the decision, 
or, if you will, the adjudication that bishop Provoost's con- 
templated resignation was not " consistent with ecclesiastical 
order, with the practice of episcopal churches in any ages, 
or with the tenor of the office of consecration," and that it 
could not be recognized " as an effectual resignation of his 
episcopal jurisdiction ?" Is it an act of legislation to pro- 
nounce whether a particular act be lawful or not? And yet, 
on this confusion of jurisdictional with legislative acts, is 
the firmest part of bishop Hobart's argument triumphantly 
established ! He says it cannot affect bishop Provoost's re- 
signation, because it was an ex post facto law, if a valid act 
of legislation! that it was not a valid act of legislation, be 

* See page 28, el sequent * See p. 18 



BOB 

cause the house of clerical and lay deputies never acted uppji 
it! They never acted upon it, because they rightly consi- 
dered it, not as of a legislative character, but as the decision 
of the bishops, on antecedently established law, and there- 
fore " not designed to be acted upon by them." They en- 
tered the communication from the bishops on their journaIs s 
and took no other notice of it, because they had no autho- 
rity to notice it, further than respectfully to submit and con- 
form themselves to it. It affects bishop Provoost's resigna- 
tion, not as an ex post facto or any other law; but as a judg- 
ment on a matter of episcopal cognizance and jurisdiction,, 
pronounced by the only competent episcopal tribunal, and 
founded on the long settled common law of all episcopal 
churches, which that venerable judicial body collected from 
the uniform practice ot those churches in every age, froni 
the principles of ecclesiastical order, and from the tenor of 
the office of consecration. Whether the Opinion they de- 
livered, and the judgment they pronounced, were well or ill 
founded, their act Was jurisdictional: and as they are the su 
preme judicial tribunal of our church, there is no appeal 
from their decision; it must therefore be received and sub- 
roitted to, as truly speaking of the law of the church* 

Let us now examine the proceedings which took place res- 
pecting the resignation of bishop Provoost, and the conse- 
cration of bishop Moore, in order to ascertain the relative 
character of each. The former, by a verbal act in the state 
convention, did what he intended and believed to be a valid 
resignation of his office ; for I have cited sufficient authority 
to the arbitrators,* from Bingham's Ecclesiastical Antiquities 
of the Christian Church,f to show that episcopal office and 
jurisdiction mean the same thing; and bishop Provoost un- 
doubtedly meant to resign the whole of his office. The state 
convention, feeling no right to control him, but providing, 
according to their duty, for the vacancy, should his act be 
valid, or made so by the proper authority, elect bishop 
Moore, and furnish him with the requisite testimonials 

* Seep. 272, 273. f Book ii. chap, 1, « t 

rt2 



605 

This was perhaps a proper measure of precaution, as ffce 
state convention would not be sitting when the validity ol 
that act should be decided on. The house of clerical and 
lay deputies being in session, before they proceeded to sign any 
testimonials, sent a message to the house of bishops,* to 
know whether they had received any communication from 
bishop Provoost on the subject of his resignation. This 
conduct is extremely remarkable, and strikingly shows their 
sentiments. If there had been an undisputed vacancy in the 
diocese, they would at once have signed the requisite testi- 
monials, and transmitted them, with those of the state con- 
vention, to the house of bishops — but in this case, before 
they do so, they send a message to that house. Why? Be- 
cause they were sensible there was no undisputed vacancy, 
and that the house of bishops must decide upon the existence 
of that vacancy, before their testimonials could be of any 
avail; they therefore reversed the ordinary course of proceed- 
ing— delayed their own act, ami waited to hear from the 
house of bishops, by whose decision, it is manifest, they 
were to be regulated as to that act. The house of bishops 
had taken into consideration bishop Provoost's letter to bi- 
shop White,! in which he certainly stated that he had re» 
signed his jurisdiction at the late meeting of the state con- 
vention : but doubting the validity or practicability of such 
a resignation, and wishing to act with deliberation and cir- 
cumspection, they solicited an interview with the clerica? 
delegates from the diocese of New-York, the particulars o 
which are to be found in Mr. Ireland's testimony.;); The de 
legates, Mr. Ireland says, were four, Dr. Beach, Mr. Wil- 
kius, Miv Hobart, and himself. Gentlemen on the other 
side, doubtless with the view of discrediting Mr. Ireland, 
say that Mr. Wilkins remembers nothing of this, I am sorry 
for i(; but the infirmities of nature will creep on us. Dr 
fck kch appears to have known it, when as president of the 
state convention in 1811, he agreed from the chair that bi 
-shop Provoost was the diocesan, and bishop Moore only as- 

* Secp.-AQ. t Seep, 124, 125, i Seepage 130. 



507 

distant Bishop Hobart seems to have recollected it; or 
why did he accept letters of consecration as bishop, to assist 
the bishops of the church in this state !• 

The doubts of the house of bishops having been in no res- 
pect removed by the interview with the clerical delegates 
from New- York, they returned an answer to the house of 
clerical and lay deputies,* in which they treat the act of bi- 
foishop Provoest as having in itself no validity ; as having re- 
ceived none from any real or constructive acceptance of it 
by the state convention; as merely a contemplated resignation, 
and a design in question ; declare it inconsistent with eccle*- 
siastical order, with the practice of episcopal churches in 
any ages, and that they judge it to be inconsistent with the 
sacred trust committed to them, to recognize the bishop'^ 
act as an effectual resignation of his episcopal jurisdiction. 
Nevertheless, in consideration of the present exigencies of 
the church in this diocese, they announce they are ready to 
consecrate to the office of bishop, any person who may be 
presented to them with the requisite testimonials from the 
general and state conventions, and of whose religious, moral 
and literary character, due satisfaction may be given, and. 
■conclude thus : " But this house must be understood to be 
explicit in their declaration, that they shall consider such a 
person as assistant or coadjutor bishop during bishop Pro- 
voost's life, although competent in point of character to all 
the episcopal duties ; the extent in which the same shall be 
discharged by him, to be dependent on such regulations ao 
expediency may dictate to the church in New-York, grounded 
on the indisposition of bishop Provoost, and with his con- 
currence." This message it is said comes from a body that 
had nothing to do with the question of bishop Provoosfs re- 
signation, and yet the house of clerical and lay delegates 
called for it before they signed their own certificate, or for- 
warded that of the state convention in favour of Dr. Moore: 
It treats that resignation as an invalid and ineffectual act; 
and yet bishop Hobart, and his associates in opinion, consi- 
der the resignation perfect, without any acquiescence or con 

t See p, 40 f 



508 

currencs of any other person cr body. But assuredly, 
when that right reverend controversialist thought fit, in his 
- Statement," to give vent to language of contumely against 
Mr. Jones, for daring to call bishop Provoost's act a proffered 
resignation^ he did not intend to extend the insult of his 
contradiction to that most venerable body of which he had 
so lately become a member: he must have forgotten that 
they also called it a contemplated resignation, and a mere de- 
sign in question. This message is also considered by our ad- 
versaries as a mere opinion, having no binding efficacy: but 
its language is expressly different ; its style is that of autho- 
rity, power, and control : — " they judge it to be inconsistent 
with the sacred trust committed to them to recognise the bi- 
shop's act ; as an effectual resignation of his episcopal juris- 
diction :" and again, " but this house must be understood to 
be explicit in their declaration, that they shall cojisider such 
a person as assistant or coadjutor bishop during bishop Pro- 
voost's lite," &c< and also, " the extent to which the same 
shall be discharged, to b$ dependent on such regulations as ex- 
pediency may dictate to the church in New- York," &c. The 
house of bishops also declared that they would consecrate 
any person who should be presented to them with the requi- 
site testimonials from the general and state conventions, 
** and of whose religious, moral, and literary character, due 
satisfaction may be given." By this they claimed and re- 
served to themselves a right to consider and judge, and of 
course to approve and confirm the election independently of 
those certificates, and to do sp as a distinct and antecedent 
set to consecration, Every part of this message then, was 
a clear assertion and exercise of that episcopal jurisdiction 
which they hold under the general principles of our church 
government, and for which they are not indebted to any 
canon or article in the constitution. 

The house of clerical and lay deputies having received 
what they solicited from the bishops, their decision on the 
state of the church created by bishop Provoost's act; and 
finding that the customary certificates would be required, 
signed their own, and forwarded it with that of the state con- 
vention. They did no more, and for this reason, that as svh- 



509 

mission and acquiescence were their duty, nothing more 
would have become them. But if they imagined that the 
bishops had in their message assumed more authority than 
they rightfully possessed ; or that it interfered with the elec- 
tive rights guaranteed to the state convention by the fourth 
article of the general constitution; or that it improperly ques- 
tioned the validity of bishop Provoosfs resignation, which 
that convention had rightfully accepted; or that, in expli- 
citly asserting that they would only consider bishop Moore 
as the assistant, and bishop Provoost as the diocesan, they 
were laying the foundation of future doubts, heart-burnings, 
and perhaps schisms in the church, growing out of an unau- 
thorised, erroneous, and ill-judged opinion :-^-If, I say, the 
house of clerical and lay deputies had considered that mes- 
sage in any disputable shape as to its propriety or future 
effects, it is not possible to conceive that they should have 
entirely forgotten their own important station and duties, 
and have contented themselves with simply placing it on 
their journals without reply, eomment, or animadversion, 
Without reply, comment, or animadversion they signed the 
testimonials which the house of bishops had previously de» 
clared should only operate to make an assistant bishop, not- 
withstanding the resolutions and act of the state convention. 
Mr. Wilkins, indeed, in his testimony* says, " he thinks 
that the opinion expressed by the house of bishops at that 
lime, as to the resignation of a bishop, was considered by 
the house of clerical and lay deputies as a mere opinion, 
in no wise binding on them." If so, their silence cannot be 
too severely reprobated, as a careless, faithless, and criminal 
dereliction of their duty to preserve the good order, tranquil- 
lity, and correct discipline of that part of the christian church 
with which they were connected. He further says,f " the 
deputies" (i. e. the clerical deputies from New-York, whom 
the bishops had invited to an interview) " returned with the 
same sentiments they had previously entertained on that sub- 
ject; the business went on as usual; bishop Moore was con- 
secrated, and as the deponent then, and has ever since he= 

* Seepage 239. ^ See page 2AI. 



510 

fieved, the diocesan of the state; and as far as lie understock 
the opinions of the members of the house of clerical and lay 
deputies, this was the opinion of all of them." The silence 
of those entertaining that opinion, when their official stations 
called on them to speak and act decidedly, was most singu- 
larly strange and censurable. The silence of those who 
thought the house of bishops had only acted within the 
sphere of their duty, and that their message declared, and 
therefore settled the law of the ciiurch, was respectful and 
proper. I am therefore willing to hope that Mr. Wilkins is 
mistaken in his recollection or his judgment of the general 
opinion. He recollects nothing of the particulars of the in- 
terview between the New- York clerical deputies and the bi- 
shops, to which Mr. Ireland has testified. He says, those 
deputies returned with the same sentiments they had pre- 
viously entertained on that subject. Mr. Ireland says they 
acquiesced in the decision of the bishops to consecrate bishop 
Moore as an assistant, and withdrew. Perhaps his recoilec- 
tion has failed him further; or he could not have conversed 
with the other witnesses who belonged to that convention; 
or with those of whom they speak. Mr. Ireland says,* " and 
the deponent understood, and as he firmly believes, every 
other member in both houses understood that he was conse- 
crated an assistant bishop to bishop Provoost. The deponent 
says he is certain that it was then understood, and as he be- 
lieves, by every member of both houses, that bishop Prc- 
voost's resignation was not then accepted." Dr. Harris also 
says,! " he thinks that the house of clerical and lay deputies 
acquiesced in the aforesaid communication, and was then of 
opinion that it belonged exclusively to the house of bishops 
to accept or not of bishop ProvoGst's resignation, and to pre- 
scribe the conditions upon which they would constitute ano- 
ther." And again,;): " the deponent says, that when he at- 
tended, as a member of the house of clerical and lay depu« 
ties, the consecration of bishop Moore, and signed his testi- 
monials, he did it on the ground that bishop Moore was 
thereby made an assistant or coadjutor bishop, and he verily 

* Seep. 125. ? Seep. 13£. J Seep. 133. 



5*4 

believes that such wag the understanding of the other mem 
bers of that convention." To this testimony may he added 
the expression of Dr. Beach, when chairman of the special 
convention in J 811, and called upon to decide; he then un- 
equivocally declared that bishop Provoost was the diocesan $ 
and therefore I cannot doubt but that he entertained the same 
opinion as one of the clerical deputies from New- York to the 
general convention in 1801. So I think must bishop Hobarf; 
himself have thought, or he never would have accepted let- 
ters of consecration as an assistant to bishop Provoost, as 
well as to bishop Moore. His opinions indeed seem now to 
be different, but that difference of sentiment was never made 
known (so far as I have heard) until the commencement of 
the present controversy. In the same light also did bishop 
Moore consider his own consecration. Mr. Ireland* testifies 
to this fact. " Immediately after the interview with the 
house of bishops, as aforesaid, he wrote to Dr. Moore, re- 
questing him to come on without delay to Trenton, which 
he did, and was met at the stage-house by the deponent and 
several of the clerical and lay delegates, who had an inter 
view with Dr. Moore, and explained to him all that had 
passed, and what is herein before related respecting his in- 
tended consecration; and particularly that the clerical dele- 
gates from New- York had acquiesced in his, Dr. Moore's 
consecration as an assistant to bishop Provoost; to which 
Dr. Moore replied, that if he had known so much before he 
left home, he would not have come on. The deponent has 
a distinct recollection of the preceding observation of Dr. 
Moore, because he at the time chided the deponent in terms 
of severity, for not having communicated to him the terms 
on which he was to be consecrated bishop, as he did also 
another person present, who, the deponent understood, had 
likewise written to Dr. Moore on the subject." On this dis- 
appointment and resentment of bishop" Moore, which, not- 
withstanding the " destitute state of the church in this dio- 
cese," would have prevented his going from New-York to 
Trenton to be consecrated an assistant bishop, though he 

* Seep. 125% 



51% 

readily undertook the same journey in order to be cons^ 
crated diocesan, I do not mean to dwell ; I shall, however, 
observe that it may afford some palliation for what bishop 
Hobart calls the inordinate love of power of Mr. Feltus, in 
refusing to accept the office of assistant minister, when he 
could not be co-rector: and I cannot help thinking, that in 
the sheet of accusations prepared by bishop Hobart against 
Mr. Feltus, and presented to bishop Moore himself he repro- 
bates this " love of power," considering every thing, in 
terms too pointed, and scarcely respectful) when he says* 
" it appears to us little consistent with that christian humility 
which should ever be the attendant of extraordinary piety, 
and of extraordinary zeal for the glory of God and the good 
of souls, in Mr. Feltus* to disdain the office of assistant min- 
ister, which has subsisted from time immemorial in episcopal 
churches, and has at different times and in different places 
been cheerfully filled by persons of at least equal pretensions 
with Mr. Feltus." This dissatisfaction on the part of bi- 
shop Moore may also serve to explain the facility with which 
he has brought himself to claim the diocesan powers, which 
the house of bishops withheld from him. The only use of it, 
however, which I shall at present make, is to show, that 
although he disliked the arrangement, he submitted to it, and 
accepted consecration, with the express knowledge that he 
was only received and consecrated as an assistant. 

His letters of consecration, however, are relied upon, as 
having done away these conditions,* for they state him to 
have been consecrated u into the office of bishop of the 
protestant episcopal church in the state of New-York, to 
which he hath been elected by the convention of the said 
state, in consequence of the inability of the right rev. bishop 
Provoost, and of his declining all episcopal jurisdiction 
within the said state." To this, many answers may be 
given. These letters bear date the da^ after the message, 
and are executed by the same persons as sent that message, 
only that they were not at the consecration acting in a col- 
lective capacity as a house of bishops 5 syned ; or college $ 

• See page 42. 



SIS 

but only as individual bishops. The two instruments must 
be considered as cotemporaneous, and the latter must be con- 
strued so as to make it consistent with the former, which is 
also the governing instrument. If the three consecrated bi- 
shops had intended to overturn the act of the house of bi° 
shops, they were not in their individual capacities competent 
to do it; but Ihey had no such intention. Bishop White ? 
the senior bishop, in the article church, already quoted from 
the American edition of Rees's Cyclopaedia, sets forth the 
message of the house of bishops, and then goes on ; " con- 
formably with the line of conduct thus laid down, Dr. Benjamin 
Moore, being duly recommended, was consecrated during 
the session in St. Michael's Church Trenton, and took his 
seat in the house of bishops." In giving the letters of con- 
secration, the duty of the bishops was to attest the fact of 
consecration, and the diocese to which he was allotted, but, 
the message of the house expressly settled the limitations of 
his authority. The office into which they consecrated him 
was undoubtedly that of bishop of this diocese ; the same 
expression is used in bishop Hobart's letters of consecration; 
but they carefully omitted the word assistant, because if it 
had been inserted, after bishop Provoost's death, it would 
have created the necessity of a new appointment, to make 
him diocesan. This is clearly also the opinion of Mr. Wil- 
kins, though his phraseology is loose and inaccurate;* " he 
thinks that if the house of bishops should consecrate a person, 
as an assistant, or coadjutor bishop, that person couid not 
become a diocesan, without the subsequent act or concur- 
rence of the house of bishops." To avoid this difficulty the 
word assistant was omitted, and terms used that would ex 
press diocesan authority, when by the death of bishop Pro- 
voost, he could assume it, conformably with the limitations 
imposed by the house of bishops. Subsequently indeed, in 
the letters of bishop Hobart, a different and a better mode of 
doing the same thing has been adopted ; but that probably 
did not occur, or seem advisable to the bishops on the forme? 
occasion. It is however manifest that bishop Moore's letters 
intimate nothing of an acceptance of bishop Provoosfs retjg- 
* See pi 241. 

S 8 2 



Hi 

nation, for then 'the word " resignation ,* would naturally 
have been used ; they only speak of his inability, and of his 
declining all episcopal jurisdiction. 

But it is further urged, the election of the state convention 
vas unequivocally to the office of diocesan, and the house of 
bishops had no right to annex a condition or limitation to the 
unconditional and unlimited act of the state convention, 
If that were correct, what would be the result ? It would no£ 
make the resignation of bishop Provoost valid, contrary to 
the house of bishops refusal to recognize it. He was the 
diocesan originally, and must continue so, until death, ac- 
cepted resignation or competent removal. None of these hap- 
pened—he was therefore still the diocesan ; there was there- 
fore no vacancy, the election by the state convention was there 
fore a nullity ah initio, and bishop Moore was consecrated a 
bishop without the proper election by the state convention. 
What pleasure that conclusion can afford to bishop Moore or 
his friends, or what advantage can result from it to their argu- 
ment, I am at a loss to conjecture : but it is not correct 
The state convention, in electing, have no right to fix upon 
or judge of conditions or limitations to the office ; it is no pari 
of their function ; they are only to designate the person upon, 
whom it would be acceptable, that episcopal authority should 
be conferred, in case the conferring of it should be found ne- 
cessary, or advisable by the house of bishops, perhaps in 
this case, where there was no certain vacancy, as in the 
event of death, the state convention should, before they act- 
ed at alU have waited, as the house of clerical and lay depu- 
ties did, for the decision of the house of bishops, upon the 
validity of the resignation ; but their more precipitate con- 
duct originated from a good motive, and was received in 
good part by their superiors, who felt that no such act of 
election could affect or control their right to decide upon the 
preliminary question, the validity of the contemplated resig- 
nation. As they were willing to consecrate an assistant^ 
the act of the state convention was therefore considered by 
them 5 a very sufficient designation who was the person of 
their choice, for receiving- whatever portion of the episcopal 
power in their diocese, it might be thought fit to confer. 
But in truth, the right of limiting and controlling the extent 



515 

of that power or jurisdiction, according to the exigencies of 
the church, in each individual instance, always has belonged, 
and of necessity must belong to the episcopal head, where 
the civil regulations have not interfered to wrest it away, 
and transfer it to the supreme civil magistrate of the govern- 
ment. The house of bishops, being that episcopal head, 
confer that power, and cujits est dare, ejus est disponere. I 
have already marked out from the history of the episcopal 
church of Scotland, a very striking instance of its being ex- 
ercised, where the college of bishops ratified the election of 
bishop Fullarton as bishop of Edinburgh j but with a limita- 
tion, that he should not possess metropolitical powers, fur- 
ther than to convoke the bishops, and preside at their meet- 
ings. Bishop Rose, his predecessor, had enjoyed them till 
his death. The presbyters of the diocese elected bishop Ful- 
larton, without limitation to every thing connected with the. 
episcopal jurisdiction of the diocese ; which was metropolitan s 
but the bishops, by their own exclusive act, destroyed its 
metropolitical powers, and annexed a much more striking 
limitation to their ratification, than was done by the house 
of bishops in the case of bishop Moore. 

The act of the house of bishops was therefore in all its 
parts correct, legal and binding ; it was acquiesced in by the 
house of clerical and lay deputies, even if they had the pow- 
er to contest it. It was known and submitted toby bishop 
Moore before his consecration ; nothing has ever happened 
to abrogate it. And yet bishops Moore and Hobart, are now 
at the head of those, who assert the former's claim to dioce- 
san jurisdiction, and totally deny that bishop Provoost has 
any connexion with this diocese. I cannot I confess conceal 
my astonishment that bishop Moore should pursue this course; 
when he himself acquiesced (although not with the best grace) 
in the decision of the house of bishops ; and when, after having 
been clearly apprised of the condition of his consecration, 
he accepte-' 1 the office of assistant bishop with all its limita- 
tions : nor have I words sufficiently strong to describe my 
sense of the infatuation of bishop Hobart, who puts forth 
to the world an acrimonious " Statement," written in a style 
scarcely episcopal, and certainly not evangelical, who pe? 



516 

remptoriiy controverts the jurisdictional authority of that body, 
into which he has lately been received, and boldly fixes the 
stigma of folly or of fraud on his own letters of consecration, 
which are the testimonials of his holy office ! Let us see what 
are the positions of bishop Hobart in his Statement, and how 
far they are consistent with his letters of consecration. The 
latter are to be found in the documents.* They purport to 
be given by " William White, D. D. bishop of the protestant 
episcopal church in the state of Pennsylvania, presiding bi= 
shop ; Samuel Provocst, D. D. bishop of ike protestant episcopal 
church in the state of New-York ; and Abraham Jarvis, D. D. 
bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the state of Con- 
necticut:" and they certify that they have consecrated John 
Henry Hobart, D. D. &c, " into the office of bishop of 
the protestant episcopal church in the state of New-York, 
to. which he hath been elected by the convention of said 
state, to assist the bishops of the church in said state, in the 
duties," &c. Notwithstanding the very unequivocal recogni- 
tion contained in this instrument, accepted and acted upon by bi- 
shop Hobart, he has notscrupled to maintain in his Statement,! 
and announce, as incontestibly proved, that " bishop ftioore is 
in right, as he has been for years in fact, the diocesan bishop 
of the protestant episcopal church in the state of New- York. 
Bishop Provoost has no right to this office. He is indeed a 
bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the United States 
of .America : but he is not in any sense, the bishop of the 
protestant episcopal church in the state of New-York. He 
lias no episcopal jurisdiction whatever over the protestant 
episcopal church in this diocese." Let me with profound 
respect approach those incontestihlu proved positions, and en- 
quire into the proofs of any of them, winch I have not yet 
examined. By what election or consecration (if bishop Pro- 
Yoost's resignation was a valid divestment of what he ac- 
quired by the original election of the convention of this 
state.) did he become a bishop in the protestant episcopal 
•ck in the United States of America ? He was not conse- 
crated to that office, like the Scotch bishops, of whom 1 have? 

* Sfcjp. 42, 43c | Seep. 6. 



&17 

already spoken. He would, I admit, notwithstanding that re= 
signation, be a bishop in the church at large; that is, in the 
reformed episcopal church of Christendom : he would be a bishop 
at large (a new and curious expression, but not inaptly con- 
ceived to describe a new and curious situation.) But what 
election, appointment, or consecration was there, to limit 
and circumscribe the indefinite largeness of that character ? 
He never had any episcopal jurisdiction or connection 
with the church in the United States, except so far as he 
was bishop of the state of New-York, which is part of that 
church. If that jurisdiction or connection was destroyed, was 
not every thing destroyed that gave him any episcopal rela- 
tion to the church in the United States ? By what reserva- 
tion did he retain it ? How is he better entitled to be a bishop 
of the church in the United States, than an English or Scotch 
|)ishop would be, if he were to resign his see in one of those 
countries, emigrate to America, and worship in our commu- 
nion? How is he more a bishop in the protestant episcopal 
church in the United States, than he is of the protestant 
episcopal church in England, Scotland, or Denmark? For 
this incontcstibly proved position, I confess I can find no proof. 
If then he be only a bishop at largc> let me further ask, by 
what authority he could sit in our house of bishops any more 
than a resigned English or Scotch bishop resident here ? And 
yet by a reference to the journals of the very house of bishops 
that ratified bishop Hobart's election, bishop Provoost's ina- 
bility from sickness to attend, is noticed and entered on their 
journals; thereby, most unequivocally recognizing his right 
to sit among them. If he were only a bishop at large, he 
would nevertheless (and so would an English or Scotch bi- 
shop) be perfectly competent to assist in bishop Hobart's con- 
secration; but the letters of consecration should state his 
title truly, they should have called him " a bishop of the pro- 
testant episcopal church; or at most, a bishop of the protest- 
ant episcopal church in the United States. But with the 
incontestible proofs possessed by bishop Hobart to the contrary, 
why did he ever submit to the insertion of falsehood in his 
own letters of consecration, and permit Samuel Provoost to be 
there stiled " bishop of the protestant episcopal church in the state 



m 

of New-York?' when " ke is not in any sense, the bishop of 
the protestant episcopal church in the state of New-York ?" If 
bishop Provoost " has no episcopal jurisdiction whatsoever over 
the protestant episcopal church in this diocese" who were meant 
by the terms in bishop Hobart's letters of consecration, 
" the bishops of the church in said state ?" With the incon* 
testible proofs which this latter gentleman boasts of being 
able to furnish, that bishop Provoost " has no episcopal juris- 
diction whatsoever over the protestant episcopal church in 
this diocese," what infatuation could have induced him to 
devote himself by his consecration, and by the vows it ex- 
presses or implies, to assist such a man in the duties of the 
episcopal office in this state ? I am lost in amazement at this 
conduct; but I must protect him against the inferences it almost 
forces on our minds. When he accepted the consecrated office, 
and devoted himself to assist bishop Provoost in his episco- 
pal duties in this diocese, I am convinced he neither equivo- 
cated nor deceived : he had no doubt of the rightful powers 
and authority in this diocese, of both the bishops he under- 
took to assist. The only thing that can be alledged against 
him is, that when the authority of bishop Provoost was inter- 
posed as a shield to a proscribed clergyman and protected 
him from ruin ; when it became a barrier against the accom- 
plishment of a favourite object, then those doubts arose, and 
he raised his head against his rightful diocesan, forgot or set 
at naught the terms of his own tenure, and proclaimed to him 
and to the world- — I am a bishop in this diocese — you, that 
would interpose and protect, are nothing here. 

I say that at the time of his consecration he had no doubts 
of bishop Provoost' s authority; I say it in charity, and I sin- 
cerely hope it is true. I think it must be so; for no doubt 
at the time was any where expressed. In our state conven- 
tion, in May, 1S11, as appears by Dr. Moore's evidence, al- 
ready quoted^* and by several other witnesses, Mr. Harison 
moved that the person to be elected an assistant bishop, 
should, after the death of bishop Moore, be the dioce- 
san* this was objected to as impossible, because bishop 

* Seep. 151, 



§19 

Provoost was the diocesan; and Dr* Beach, the president of 
the convention, was appealed to, who confirmed the state- 
ment : Mr. Harison then modified his resolution accordingly, 
Here was a concession of the fact that bishop Provoost was 
the diocesan. The house of bishops also acting on that fact, 
record his absence, from indisposition, clearly recognizing 
him as one of their body; and the letters of consecration, of 
a few days later date, expressly give him his title, and no= 
tice his jurisdiction as bishop of this diocese. The public 
ecclesiastical acts of laymen, presbyters, or bishops, until 
the commencement of this controversy, had, whenever the 
occasion required it, admitted his rights. There is therefore 
the fairest reason to presume that Dr. Hobart did not at that 
time doubt them.. But if the clergy of the diocese are to be 
bound by their supposed acquiescence in bishop Moore's dio- 
cesan acts, and Mr. Jones to foe peculiarly pressed upon, be- 
cause, where no particular meaning was attached to the 
word, and where it only served as an expression of compli- 
ment, and to round a period, he incautiously called bishop 
Moore his beloved diocesan, are no inferences to be pressed 
upon bishop Hobart and his supporters, from their individual 
or collective acts as delegates to the different conventions, 
and particularly from his letters of consecration? 

Although indeed no ecclesiastical body had, before the 
existence of this controversy, presumed to question bishop 
Provoost's diocesan authority, it has since been unequivo- 
cally denied. Bishop Provoost having, by means of this 
controversy, for the first time learned, in his seclusion and 
retirement, the decision of the house of bishops, and that 
the extent in which bishop Moore was to exercise the epis- 
copal duties, was required by that house to be dependent on 
such regulations as expediency might dictate to the church 
in New- York, addressed a letter to the state convention of 
1812,* in which he states that he had only recently acquired 
this information ; expresses a due respect for the sentiments 
so strongly and decisively expressed in the resolution of the 
house of bishops, and his readiness to act in deference 1 to it* 

* See page 49, 



520 

and to concur in any regulations which expediency might 
dictate to the church. In consequence thereof, the state 
convention, with bishop Hobart at their head, adopted a 
series of resolutions, also to be found in the documents,t 
which, if I am not much mistaken, the arbitrators are now 
prepared to view as a string of arrogant pretensions, false 
principles, and false statements. 

They assert, in despite of the decision of the house of bishops, 
that the jurisdiction of a bishop over his diocese may be re- 
signed, ami that such resignation, when accepted by the 
state convention, creates a vacancy in the office of diocesan. 
They then state the resignation of bishop Provoost, and as 
I conceive, unfoundedly assert that his resignation was ac- 
cepted by the convention; thereby abandoning, with bishop 
Hobart at their head, the line of argument triumphantly 
adopted by bishop Hobart in his " Statement." The resolu- 
tions then proceed on the same principle, that an acceptance 
by the state convention was necessary, and on the assump- 
tion that an acceptance was had ; in consequence of which 
they say, bishop Provoost ceased to be the diocesan : and t<y 
meet the effect of his letter, and bishop White's opinion % 
they say he could neither assume, nor be restored to that 
character by any act of his own, or of the general conven- 
tion, or of either of its houses, without the consent or partici- 
pation of the state convention ; they therefore vote that his 
claim to such character is unfounded. They then declare 
the whole diocesan authority to be exclusively in bishop 
Moore, inasmuch as he got consecration, although he un- 
doubtedly got it with a different view and intention; and 
they call bishop Hobart his coadjutor ; which I humbly con- 
ceive to be a mistatement of his letters of consecration, 
which say he was consecrated to assist the bishops, in the 
plural. After these preliminary argumentative resolutions, 
comes the conclusion — " And this convention, in their own 
names, and for the protestant episcopal church in this state, 
do hereby solemnly declare and acknowledge the said Ben 
jamin Moore, and no other person, to be their true and law- 
ful diocesan bishop: and that respect and obedience ought of 
f Seep. 50, 51 . 



mi 

Fight to be paid to him as such." These resolutions are put 
forward by the opposite counsel as a decisive adjudication of 
this question ; and they call upon you to acquiesce in it, be- 
cause it is made by the competent tribunal : and the}' allege 
it to be peculiarly respectable, on account of its nearly una- 
nimous adoption ; for Drs. Harris and Moore, and Mr. Feltus 
declined to vote on those resolutions. Now, on the con- 
trary, I do not hesitate to pronounce them of no weight qr 
consequence, except so far as they are schismatic and crimi- 
nal ; a factious effervescence from a body, that had no right 
to adjudicate or decide upon the matters they pretend to settle, 
and peculiarly contemptible for the approach to unanimity in 
their adoption. In order to give a key to these resolutions^ 
and to this unanimity, let me advert to the evidence of Dr 
Harris* and Dr» Moore.f At the meeting of the presbyters 
in November, 1811, Mro Harison, as the organ bf the vestry, 
made a long speech to convince them that bishop Provoost 
h&d resigned to the state convention; that his resignation was 
accepted ; and that the state convention alone was the pro- 
per body to decide who was the diocesan* But without wait- 
ing for any future decision from even that exclusively proper 
body, " Mr.' Harison observed that the vestry of Trinity 
Church would never acknowledge any other diocesan than 
bishop Moore, during his life*" Apprised by this hint, the 
convention met. If I have not mispent my time and my 
arguments, I need not consume more of either in showing 
that to decide who was the rightful diocesan is entirely a 
question of episcopal jurisdiction. That the state conven- 
tion possesses no jurisdiction of any kind 5 but is most pecu- 
liarly disqualified from interfering in matters of episcopal ju~ 
risdictiono As a decision, then, these resolutions are as in- 
significant as if they had avowedly come from the vestry of 
Trinity Church. But surely, it may be said, as an opinion? 
their unanimity entitles them to the utmost respect. Now 
let me suppose that all the arguments presented to you on 
the subject of the diocesan are fallacious ; still, are they so 
totally destitute of all plausibility, as, not to obtain adherents 

4 Seep. 133. f Seep. 152. ^ 

T t 2 



iii a numerous meeting? Is it in the nature of human iutel 
feet, so diversified, so various, differing so much in different, 
persons, and wherever differences of opinion can possibly be 
entertained; is it consistent with the immense variety oV 
man, that on a subject (if my reasoning has unfortunately 
been erroneous) so complicated, so difficult, and presenting 
such a variety of arguments, and so many points of view as 
you perceive this question does, any numerous and unpreju- 
diced assembly should unanimously concur against even that 
erroneous reasoning. No, no ; much as I admire the inge- 
nuity and talents of my adversaries, I cannot admit that even 
they, (and no men would be more likely) could on the sub- 
ject in question produce such universal conviction. Some, 
and I readily admit many of that convention, entertained de 
cided and honest opinions conformably to whieh they voted; 
but nothing can prove more strongly, than does this unani- 
mity, the dangerous power and overbearing influence of that 
corporation, which having swallowed up, occasionally dis- 
gorges small portions of that wealth that is required to feed 
and support our episcopal communion. " I had rather be 
wrong with Cato," said an enthusiastic admirer of that up« 
right citizen, " I had rather be wrong with Cato, than right 
with the rest of Rome." May I be permitted, irreverently 
I admit, so far as relates to distinguished worth and virtue; 
but may I venture to paraphrase that expression for the use 
of all dependent presbyters, " I had rather be wrong with 
Trinity Church, than right with the house of bishops." And 
where nojiopes of future benefits conciliated the judgment 
of any of the members of that convention, gratitude perhaps 
struck its roots into their minds: reason alone never produced 
.hat boasted concurrence of opinions. 

But whatever may have caused it, the convention have 
committed an act of downright schism. A body of inferior 
presbyters and lay deputies have assumed to themselves me- 
tropolitan power and jurisdiction; haye totally disclaimed 
the authority of the bishops of the church, and resist their 
proceedings in a matter peculiarly within their cognizance 
To them I return the language of bishop Hobart himself* 

* See Statement, p. 7, 



S2S 

"■•** they who resist these proceedings, resist the lawful author- 
ity of the church ; and on those who resist this authority and 
form any combination against it, must fall the guilt of causing 
division in the church, and of rending the body of Christ." 
I caution you against attaching any weight to these resolu- 
tions. They will, I trust, when reason and temper returns, 
be repented of in sackcloth and ashes; they must come under 
the cognizance and meet the censure of the heads of our 
church, if its discipline is not to be sacrificed to the mammon 
of unrighteousness. What that venerable body the house of 
bishops will hereafter do, I cannot undertake to say; per- 
haps, considering themselves poor in means and on worldly 
calculations weak, when compared with the mighty monster^ 
by which this schism has been engendered, they may over? 
look the offence, hoping that it may not pass into a prece* 
dent, and thinking that the advanced life and infirmities of 
the objects of the controversy may cause it speedily to cease, 
But if the spirit of St. Paul dwell with the successors of the 
apostles, they will act, not with the temporising weakness of 
timid politicians, but with the dignity of their holy office; 
they will command this rebellious convention, laity, clergy,, 
and bishop, all to submit to their authority, or depart from the 
communion. And here, in the very center of the schismatic 
camp, I raise the standard of my rightful superiors, which I will 
abide by, unless they should be forced to capitulate, and di- 
rect me to strike their flag. Nev«r, until they can bring 
themselves to sanction usurpation, will I submit to what I 
consider a presumptuous, arrogant, and unhallowed intrusion 
into the sanctuaries of our church. 

It is however suggested that, even though bishop Provoos.t 
should be considered as the diocesan, bishop Moore is an as^ 
distant or coadjutor bishop, and as such competent to all epis- 
copal duties. On this topie much learning has been bestowed 
to show that as coadjutor he possesses all the powers of the 
diocesan. I shall not spend much time in answering it, not 
only because I think the authorities with which I furnished 
the arbitrators* afford a sufficient answer; but also because 

Seep. 276 ; 277, 278, 



the house of bishop?, besides the word coadjutor use the 
word assistant, which I think is the term by much the most 
correctly descriptive of his situation; and also, because they 
have not left the extent of his powers to be inferred from 
books or authorities, but have expressly declared that it shall 
be "dependent on such regulations as expediency may dic- 
tate to the church in New-York, grounded on the indisposi= 
tion of bishop Provoost, and with his concurrence." It is true 
no such regulations have 3 r et been made^ and it is contended 
that the extent of his jurisdiction, is on that account, without 
limits. For my part I should judge differently : I should say 
that until such regulations were made, the exercise of his 
episcopal duties had no extent under any appropriate appoint- 
ment to the diocese; that until they were made, he was quasi 
a hiskcp at large, competent indeed to the discharge of epis- 
copal duties, every where in the christian church, and by 
virtue of his holy office, his episcopal acts valid for spiritual 
purposes, but irregular, unless performed in each diocese with 
the consent of its diocesan. In that situation, the consent of 
bishop Provoost was necessary to the regularity of his acts, 
even where their validity resulted from his spiritual authori- 
ty, and the extent in which he was authorised to discharge 
episcopal acts within this diocese depended for want of such 
regulations, exclusively on bishop Provoost's concurrence. 

In this view of the matter it is unimportant whether or not 
the words in the message of the house of bishops, " and with 
his concurrence, 1 ' apply to the regulations to be made by the 
church, or to the acts to be performed by the assistant bi- 
shop. It is, however, a most extraordinary notion, that an 
omission, whether accidental or intended, on the part of the 
state convention to propose regulations, shall put the dioce- 
san in the utter impossibility of controlling his assistant, for 
such is their position, and it is supported by the following 
argument: The extent of bishop Moore's authority is to be 
defined by regulations in which bishop Provoost must concur; 
no such regulations have been made — therefore bishop Pro- 
voost cannot concur — therefore he can do nothing— there- 
Tore bishop Moore can do every thing! But that I may not 
j>e guilty of a "palpable perversion , ' of the argument^ I wil!( 



525 

put it In the words of bishop Hobart himself, in his State- 
ment* " Now- as the church in New-York have not deem- 
ed it expedient to make any regulations on the subject, there 
was no call on bishop Provoost for his concurrence, there 
was no room for his interference until the church of New- York 
deem it expedient to make regulations, denning the extent to 
which bishop Moore is to discharge his episcopal duties ; he 
is left, as he has been these ten years, the unlimited exercise 
of them." So there is no room for his interference as dioce- 
san over his assistant, and no controlling authority growing 
out of that relation ! Dr. Hobart is consecrated assistant to 
the bishops of the diocese; if bishop Provoost be one of 
tlpose bishops, could not he — at any rate, could not bishop 
Moore, if he be the diocesan, interfere to control any act 
of bishop Hobart which he judged improper, by the mere 
force of the authority which the diocesan has over his assis- 
tant? The same authority bishop Provoost must have over 
Dr. Moore, until permanent and general regulations proposed 
by the convention shall receive his concurrence. But let mo 
mot proceed too fast, in supposing that bishop Provoost, or 
bishop Moore^ or both bishops together, can control bishop 
Hobart in the exercise of his episcopal power. The latter 
prelate in his Statement! says, that bishop Moore will lawful- 
ly exercise complete episcopal jurisdiction in this diocese, 
" until bishop Provoost formally resumes it by a notification 
to the state convention; and then, this resignation having 
been grounded on indisposition, the resumption must be 
founded on such restoration to health, as to admit of the. ex- 
ercise of general jurisdiction, eind will be subject to the regula* 
lions of the convention; otherwise the complete jurisdiction will 
rest in the " assistant bishop" to whom bishop Moore has dele- 
gated it. Bishop Provoost, even admitting him to be dioce=- 
san bishop, has no right to interfere in any particular case, to 
arrest or to annul any proceedings of bishop Moore or the as- 
sistant bishop, canonically began or completed." The rea- 
son why bishop Provoost can only resume his episcopal ju- 
risdiction by a formal notification to the state convention I 

* Scep/M. . . f Seep. 15, 



^anFes3 I have never learnt. His right of resumption, If be 
Itave it, can depend only on the invalidity of his resignation > 
the invalidity of his resignation (if it could be made) depends 
partly on the incompetency of the state convention to meddle 
with it. If his resignation was not complete and effectual, 
where is the necessity of any resumption ? if it was complete 
and effectual in itself, how can he resume at all ? or if he can> 
why must he notify that resumption of his authority to a body 
which could have nothing to do with his resignation ? Why not 
resume it by a pastoral address to his diocese, or by the expli- 
cit exercise of his authority ? The convention only meets oc- 
casionalty, and at distant times ; the necessity for his interfer- 
ence, and for the exercise of his authority may well be (as it 
was in this case) urgent, and not admitting of that delay. 
Neither canon nor principle impose this restriction : but the 
chief mischief of this paragraph arises from its other posi- 
tions, that the resumption must be of all the jurisdiction, 
grounded on his restored capacity to exercise it all, subject 
to regulations of the convention ; and that the diocesan has 
no right to interfere in any particular case to arrest or annul 
the proceedings of the assistant. It must be confessed, that 
this doctrine is admirably well calculated to meet the views, 
and satisfy the ambition of an assistant or junior assistant 
bishop, to whom complete jurisdiction has been delegated 
The principle must also apply to a resumption by bishop 
Moore. An assistant was given to him in consequence of an 
application to the state convention, grounded on his indispo- 
tion ; the exercise of it must be resumed, therefore, with the 
same solemnity, by a formal notification to that conven- 
tion, " must be founded on such restoration to health, 
•as 1 to admit of the exercise of general jurisdiction, and 
will be subject to the regulations of the convention; 
otherwise the complete jiirisdiction will rest in the assistant bi- 
shop to whom bishop Moore has delegated it." And the dioce- 
san (and of course his assistant) has no right to interfere in 
any particular case, to arrest or to annul any proceedings of 
the assistant to the bishops, canonically begun or completed. 
If the junior assistant bishop has made his party good in the 
state convention, his situation is tolerably comfortable; tne 
resumption by his superiors must be subject to the regulation^ 



of the convention. The necessity for that must not be sup 
posed to arise out of the message of the house of bishops, and 
to be only applicable to bishop Provoost's case; for although 
that venerable body directed bishop Moore's discharge of. the 
episcopal duties to be dependent on such regulations, they 
Jaid down no such rule as to the exercise of them by his dio 
cesan, bishop Provoost. The necessity of those regulations 
must grow out of something else ; I know not what, except it 
be that the state convention is bishop Hobart's factotum. 
But even without those regulations, which ought more proper 
ly to be called restrictions or prohibitions, the junior assis- 
tant would be tolerably supreme, if the position be true, that 
his superiors can interfere in no particular case, but must re 
sume the whole general jurisdiction, and must first be restor 
ed to a competent state of health for its exercise. Under 
this position I wonder how bishop Moore could legally meet 
Lis presbyters, even to try or suspend Mr. Jones, after a com- 
plete delegation of the episcopal authority to his assistant — 
but let that pass. The infirmities of age and sickness render 
the resumption of general jurisdiction almost impossible, and 
no individual acts of error, partiality^ hatred, tyranny, or in- 
justice, would probably induce either of the senior bishops to 
resume the burthen of general jurisdiction. The junior as- 
sistant bishop is, then, practically and uncontrollably the di- 
ocesan, while his superiors are both cyphers ! An assistant 
is no assistant, but a supplanter. Perhaps, however, the po- 
sition may not be sound. An assistant may be extremely 
competent for the general management of the diocese ; but 
particular cases may arise in which his prejudices, his affec- 
tions, his weaknesses, his dislikes, his singular and erroneous 
notions may require to be curbed and guided, or in which op- 
pressed individuals may stand in need of an appellant author-. 
iiy ; the diocesan, though unfit, from bodily infirmity and age, 
to undergo all the labours of general jurisdiction, may be per- 
fectly well able, in such cases, to guide, to curb, and to pro- 
tect. Where then is the propriety, necessity, or canonical 
rule, when particular cases, and only such, require his inter- 
ference, that he should be disqualified from giving it, unless 
!te will also undertake the exercise of all the duties, to which 



S%8 

Us is personally unequal, and which do not require that inter- 
ference? Bishop Hobart, in his Statement* attempts to as- 
sign a reason for this position. " If the diocesan bishop may 
capriciously assume jurisdiction, in whatever way, and at 
whatever time he pleases ; if he may assume this jurisdiction 
in a particular case, contrary to the will of the coadjutor, 
while he is incompetent, as at the first, to the exercise of gen- 
eral jurisdiction ; and especially, if in a case regularly begun, 
or finished by the coadjutor, he may interfere to arrest or an- 
nul the proceedings, there is an end to all order, and all sys- 
tem in ecclesiastical proceedings; the source of episcopal 
ministration becomes uncertain; and the clergy, and the peo- 
ple of the diocese, will be doubtful whom to obey— the dio- 
cesan bishop or the coadjutor." Not to dwell on the deco- 
rousness of the expression, " capriciously assume," as appli- 
ed to a diocesan, I shall remark, that it is, perhaps, only in 
particular cases, regularly begun or finished by the coadjutor, 
that the interference of the diocesan against the will of that 
coadjutor, and to arrest or annul his proceedings, can ever be 
requisite ; and then that interference is not only required by 
justice, but consistent with order, and in perfect harmony 
with the system of ecclesiastical proceedings in our church ; it 
then ascertains and makes manifest the source of episcopal 
ministration — and neither the clergy nor the people of the di- 
ocese, (if they know the first principle of our church discip- 
line, submission to rightful superiors,) can be doubtful whom 
to obey : they will obey the coadjutor, when he is not oppo- 
sed or controlled by the diocesan — they will obey the dioce- 
san whenever he appears and acts. 

I beiive I may now venture to assert that the bishops, whom 
bishop Hobart was consecrated to assist, can control him, 
because he is only their assistant, without any general re- 
sumption of authority or regulations by the state convention, 
and from thence to infer, that although no regulations have 
been made by that body, bishop Provoost for the same reason, 
may control his assistant, bishop Moore, and arrest or annul 
such acts as meet his disapprobation, and to which he thinks 

* See p. 12. 



gt to withhold his concurrence. The acts of bishop Moore 
asunder the 32d canon, in this case are emphatically of that 
description. They were not only without his concurrence, 
but even, in direct opposition to his known will and opinion. 
His non-concurrence was made the ground of a protest by 
Mr. Jones, and of another by Drs. Harris and Moore and 
Mr. Feltus. After the proceedings of the 5th of November 
were made known to him, he declared them totally unauthor- 
ized by the constitution and canons of our church, and not; 
sanctioned by the principles of our religion or humanity. This 
was made known to bishop Moore and his presbyters the 
next day, and they immediately afterwards, proceeded to 
enforce and consummate their proceedings, by suspending 
Mr. Jones, whom bishop jProvoqst, as £he 4i° c £ s ^? * ia 4 a $ 
Fised to disregard them, 

But whatever competency bishop Moore may have acquired, 
under the message of the hortse of bishops and his subsequent 
consecration, to the discharge of episcopal duties, the convok- 
ing of the presbyters by the bishop of the diocese, and 
acting under the 32d canon, are not performances qf episco- 
pal duties within the technical meaning of the expression, or 
in the sense in which it was U3ed by the house of bishops* 
Bishop Moore was consecrated in 1801 ; this canon was 
made in 1804, with the knowledge of the actual existence of 
an assistant bishop £n this diocese ; and yet the power by ttye 
canon, is markedly given to the bishop of the diocese. 

By the words " episcopal duties" both in the message of 
the house of bishops, and in the regular ecclesiastical accep- 
tation, are meant those duties, which none bi)t a bishop can 
perform. The duties under this canon are clearly not of 
that description, for the canon itself provide? that they shall 
be performed, if there be no bishop, hy the convention, or the 
standing committee of the diocese 5 and although mj learned ad? 
versaries have contended that the state convention is the 
metropolitan, I do not know that they have yet claimed epls= 
copal authority for the standing committee* Indeed the canon 
clearly shows what it considers as an episcopal duty : although 
$he convention or the standing committee may proceed to pre? 
scribe the terms on which the connexion between fhe cjergy-. 
u 11 2 



£50 

man and the congregation shall be dissolved ; yet, if (Von: 
refusal to comply, coercion should become necessary, : the 
convention or standing committee, shall, with the aid and 
consent of a bishop, suspend the clergyman, or exclude the 
congregation from the convention; that is wherever jurisdic 
tion is to be exercised, an episcopal duty is to be performed, 
and then, the aid and consent of a bishop must be procured ; 
but until an exercise of jurisdiction is called for, the aid ot 
a bishop 13 not. in itself indispensable ; and until then the' duty 
does not become episcopal. I have already frequently ob- 
served this canon should be most strictly construed; but here 
strictness of construction is scarcely necessary; for the in- 
tention of the law-makers is obvious. Whenever it should 
become necessary to dissolve the connexion between a minis- 
ter and his congregation, as it ought to be done with the 
greatest caution and watched with the greatest jealousy, it 
shall only be done under the immediate superintendence of 
the highest ecclesiastical authority in the diocese or state, be 
that episcopal, or otherwise : and that highest ecclesiastical 
authority, shall, when necessary, proceed as far in enforcing 
the canon as it can, according to the rules of our church : if 
that highest ecclesiastical authority be diocesan, he shall 
enforce the canon by every requisite act of jurisdiction; if it 
be only the convention or standing committee, they shall pro- 
ceed as far as they can, until the exercise of jurisdiction be 
come necessary, and then they must obtain the aid and con 
aent of a bishop. By the bye, this regulation, that, the 
convention must obtain the aid and consent of some bishop. 
is not very consistent with its pretensions to inherent metro* 
politan powers and jurisdiction. I repeat then, that what 
ever competency bishop Moore, or any other assistant bishop 
may have to perform episcopal duties at large, wherever there 
is a diocesan, this canon according to its own express pro- 
visions and true meaning, can only be carried into effect by 
that diocesan, he alone being, the bishop of the diocese. 

The next thing to be observed on the 32d canon is thai 
the bishop shall summon his presbyters ; by these words must 
be understood all his presbyters, because any other construc- 
tion of them leaves every thing anoat. I say it with respect. 



53i 

but it is an observation that should not be withheld, all the 
presbyters ought to be summoned ; for otherwise, if the bi- 
shop can summon those only whom he pleases, an improper 
feeling on his part may easily be indulged, and a facility 
is given to him of oppressing a pastor. Dr. Bowden indeed 
in his evidence,* thinks differently, and assigns his reasons K 
" deponent thinks that as by the canon, eight presbyters are 
sufficient to try a clergyman on a criminal charge, that num- 
ber would be sufficient in the case of the plaintiff," From 
the maimer in which the proceedings against Mr. Jones have 
been conducted, and the reasons assigned for them, I am al- 
most tempted to exclaim, how little do these churchmen 
know of the principles, on which justice should be adminis- 
tered ! Eight presbyters are sufficient to be summoned for 
the trial of a clergyman under the canon, and therefore are 
sufficient in the case of Mr. Jones! The canon alluded to 
by Dr. Bowden, is the 2d canon of our state convention, i§ it 
provides among other things, that for the trial of a clergy- 
man the bishop shall nominate eight presbyters, out of whom 
the person accused may choose five, or if he neglect or refuse 
to do this, the bishop shall appoint five, who shall be constitu- 
ted a board for trying the accused person." In this canon* 
then, there is a compensation to the accused, for summoning 
only eight presbyters; he can select five of them, and set 
the rest aside. Was Mr. Jones permitted to select Dr* 
Moore, Dr. Harris and Mr. Feltus, who protested against the 
proceedings, Mr. Haskill who voted against them, and Mr- 
Elias Cooper, who, as Mr. Haskill testifies,! " has expressed 
a regret for the part he had taken at that meeting, on the 
ground of the proceedings, having been hasty and more severe 
against the plaintiff than the nature of the case would justify ." 
Was Mr. Jones 3 though he protested against them, permit- 
ted to strike off, and set aside the prejudiced, the intempe- 
rate, the partizan, the slanderer, the personal enemy? If 
he could not get rid of ihese> is the ingenious analogical rea- 
soning of Dr. Bowden sufficient to establish the position, 
tjiat the bishop could summon any eight of his presbyters at 

f See page 245 s f Seepage 129, 



discretion^ by whom, without exception or challenge, ihf 
client's character, office and fortunes must be passed upon 
If he could not get rid of any presbyter, however violent 
or obnoxious his only safe protection could lie in the multi- 
tude of his judges* Having them all, he might hope that 
the combinations or malignity of enemies might be controlled 
and restrained by the weight and number of impartial men. 
These considerations do not seem to have occurred to those 
who regulated the proceedings against Mr. Jones; but it is a 
* ruth, and I regret to see it, the study of divinity or belles 
lettres, does not always fit the mind for doing practical justice, 
or perceiving what it is„ 

On principle, therefore, as well as on the words of the 
gallon, which remember must always be strictly construed, 
the bishop should summon all his presbyters; we say at least 
five of them were omitted. But the opposite counsel contend 
that those five, although presbyters, and having the charge 
of congregations in the diocese, are not the bishop's presby- 
ters, because not being regularly inducted, they have not 
seats in the state convention. To prove this, they cite the 
3d article of the ecclesiastical state constitution ; " the con- 
vention shall be composed of the officiating ministers, being 
regularly admitted and settled in some church within this 
state, which is in union with this convention." And to ex- 
plain what is meant " regularly admitted and settled" they 
cite part of the 29th general canon* " JSTo minister who may 
hereafter be elected into any parish or church, shall be con- 
sidered as a regularly admitted and settled parochial minister 
in any diocese or state, or shall as such, have any vote in the 
choice of a bishop, until he shall have been instituted ac* 
lording to the office prescribed by this church." From all 
this they infer that none but instituted clergymen are to be 
considered as presbyters* This doctrine is repudiated by Mr- 
Wilkins,* " he considers a presbyter in this state, is one who 
is settled in a parish in this state, and is under the jurisdic- 
tion of the bishop. A priest who is settled in a parish, is un- 
#§r the jurisdiction of the bishop, although not instituted. 1 ' 

* See page 24 L 



SS3 

nm\ again," " he thinks that a person settled in a parish, al- 
though not instituted according to the canon, would be en- 
titled to a seat in a convocation* if called on by the bishop; 
and he thinks it is incumbent on the bishop to summon to a 
convocation, a person so settled." Even Dr. Bowden con- 
aiders the rule which the opposite counsel insist upon as 
stricti juris, only a mere matter of propriety, to guide the 
discretion which that gentleman thinks the bishop possesses, 
of summoning only such of the presbyters as he may judge 
proper, and omitting whomsoever he pleases. He says,f 
" that in cases where any authoritative act is to be done, de- 
ponent thinks that the distinction prescribed by the canon, 
in reference to seats in the convention, as a matter of pro- 
priety, would be proper to be observed." But if the definition 
of the bishop's presbyters given on the opposite side be cor- 
rect, that they are those priests who have been regularly in= 
sfcituted into a parish or church of the diocese according to 
the institution office, What becomes of Dr. Bowden himself, 
who sat in the convocation ? He says in his own evidence^ 
that he was not settled in a parish ; then according to the 
definition* he was not one of the bishop's presbyters. 

Mr. Wells* We say it is the duty of the bishop to summon 
all presbyters who are entitled to a seat in the convention* 
and Dr. Bowden was entitled to such seat, as a professor in 

Columbia College* 

* 

Mr. Emmet. The definition did not come from that gen- 
tleman; Mr. Ogden expressly laid it down, and I noted his 
words, that no one was a presbyter within the meaning of 
the 32d canon but a priest regularly instituted into a parish 
or church. I do not* however, mean to catch at words : j — iBr* 
Bowden is not one of the bishop's presbyters within the mean- 
ing of that canon. He is indeed a priest resident in the did 
cese , but he has no ecclesiastical situation under the bishop., 
and is not therefore, properly speaking, within his jurisdic- 
tion ; which is certainly necessary to constitute a bishop's 

* Seepage 242. f Seep. 242, 243, £ Seep. 245- 



presbyter. Ke has indeed a seat in the convention ; but that 
he does not enjoy in right of his being a presbyter, he has it 
because he is a clergyman, and a professor in Columbia Col- 
lege. By the 3d article of our ecclesiastical state constitu- 
tion, three kinds of clergymen are members of the conven- 
tion, ministers regularly admitted, and settled in some church 
within the state, in union with the convention ; clergymen 
employed as missionaries under the direction of the conven- 
tion ; and clergymen engaged as professors or instructors of 
youth in any college, academy, or general seminary of learn- 
ing duly incorporated. As to the first description, ministers 
settled in a church, the 29th canon* enacts that they shall 
not be considered as regularly admitted and settled, until 
they shall have been instituted according to the office pre- 
scribed by the church : the letters of institution extracted 
from that office,f as also the 29th canon itself, shew, that to 
be instituted, the minister must be a priest, that is a presby- 
ter. No such regulation or canon has been made with regard 
to missionaries or professors. Clergymen in deacons orders, 
and in either of those situations, would, therefore, be entitled 
to sit in the convention. The right then of sitting there, is, 
in no respect, connected with his character of presbyter, and 
that which gives him such right, does not place him, proper- 
ly speaking, under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bi- 
shop. He might therefore be well entitled to sit in the con- 
vention, without having a single requisite for his being one of 
the bishop's presbyters. Indeed there are very strong equita- 
ble reasons arising out of Dr. Bowden's situation, why he 
should not be called upon to act under the 32d canon : those 
required to dissolve a pastor's connection with his flock, and 
in some sort to try and punish him, should be his peers, not 
only in rank, but in condition ; they should have a commu- 
nity of feeling and of general interest with him. A profes- 
sor in Columbia College has no such community : his talents 
and wisdom may be extremely useful in a legislative body 
which is to make laws for the church, in which he must fee! 
a lively interest ; but his situation is alien, and disconnected 

* See /?. 18. f Seepage IS, 



533 

from that of a priest settled in a church: he can have no ap^- 
prehensions, lest a, quarrelsome, capricious, or practized 
upon congregation or vestry should ever seek to deprive him 
of his bread, and turn him destitute upon the world. On 
the contrary, those presbyters, who, though not actually in- 
stituted, are settled in parishes, have that community of 
feeling and general interest : they are in every necessary 
point the peers of the pastor, who is sought to be displaced; 
with the priesthood on their heads, and the bishops jurisdic- 
tion over them, they are most emphatically his presbyters. 
They might be summoned on the trial of a clergyman and 
could act, although they have not seats in the convention : 
why then are they disqualified from sitting on the arbitration, 
directed by the 32d canon? There are no words of exemption, 
and I have no doubt that it meant to include every presbyter 
under the bishop's jurisdiction. Five gentlemen are named 
by Dr. Bowden,* who were at that time settled in the diocese 
as presbyters, but had not been regularly instituted : they 
had every legal requisite for acting under the canon, and 
were peculiarly fitted for being arbitrators in this cause, as 
they never interfered in any of those disputes, or made them- 
selves parties in this controversy. The opposite counsel 
have said that those gentlemen entertain the same opinions 
with those who sat in convocation; on what part of the tes- 
timony, or what facts out of the testimony is this assertion 
founded ? I confess I doubt it, without pretending to know 
their opinions; this however I do know, that they have all 
kept themselves aloof, and have never yet joined in certifi- 
cates, cabals or combinations against the plaintiff. 

But arguing on the principle, that the bishop had a discre- 
tion whom he should summon from among his presbyters, let 
us see how it was exercised. I have already stated, that 
five, who had never committed their judgments, by any act 
or expression, were totally omitted. Who then were sum- 
moned? Dr. Harris, in his testimony! says, that in June 
1811, (at least four months before,) " Bishop Moore exhibit- 
ed to the deponent a list of the clergy, who at a meeting of 

* Seepage 243, f Seep. 128» 



5S6 

the special convention in May preceding, had recommended 
that measures should be taken for the separation of plaintiff 
from Trinity Church. The deponent recollects to have seen 
the names of Mr. Howe, Mr. Bowen, and Mr. Nash, and as 
he believes, Mr. Phelps, to that paper; and there were in all 
about a dozen names, but he does not remember any other." 
It appears, then, that of those summoned, almost all must 
have prejudged his cause ; and that this was long previously 
known to the very officer, upon whose discretion it depended 
who should be summoned. But it was not by this recom- 
mendation alone, that these presbyters had manifested their 
prejudices in this cause. Mr ? Henry Rogers was compelled, 
on his cross examination,! to prove, what had indeed been 
abundantly proved by others, as to them, and on several oc- 
casions, " that he has had repeated conversation with Mr c 
Howe on the subject of the plaintiff; he has heard him use 
very strong expressions, as applied to the conduct of the plain* 
tiff; and he thinks he lias heard Mr. Howe say, that the 
plaintiff had behaved in this transaction* as a rascal or a 
scoundrel, or other equivalent expressions." As this was cal- 
culated, by the grossness of the language from a divine, to 
bring Ms intimate friend into no small discredit, and even to 
excite disgust against him, Mr. Rogers probably thought to 
alleviate the evil, by placing liim in good company, and he 
went on : — " He never heard a clergyman speak of the afore- 
said conduct of the plaintiff, but in terms of strong indigna- 
tion." Another question brought out this reply, (i The cler- 
gymen whom he has heard speak on this subject, and to whom 
he refers, are Mr. Bowen, bishop Hobart, Mr. Berrian, Mr- 
Lyell, and he thinks, Dr. Bowden." A3 to the time of hold- 
ing this language, he says, " he cannot be particular as to the 
times when he had conversations with any of the aforesaid 
gentlemen, on the subject of plaintiff's book ; but he thinks 
it probable, that he did converse with some, or all of them, 
within three months after the publication." 

In the month of August, bishop Hobart published his letter 
to the vestry, with an appendix by Mr. Howe. In that Lei- 

f Seep.2\5 21 6. 



jto, 

lev are published a number of certificates, manifestly shewing 
the strongest bias against Mr. Jones, in the minds of those 
from whom they proceeded* Among them are, Mr. Prentice, 
Mr. Bulkley? Mr. Reed, Mr. Wilkin s, and Mr. E, Cooper. 
What then is the fact? That the very men who had recom- 
mended to bishop Moore the plaintiff's removal from his live- 
lihood; who had distinctly marked their zeal and opinions 
against turn by their certificates; who went through the city 
rousing against him the passions and prejudices of the con- 
gregation; or at least, publicly giving vent to their own: 
These, and almost only these, were summoned tp be his 
judges; but above all, the active advocate— the enlisted pam- 
phleteer — the vehement and scurrilous abuser — the man so 
deeply embarked in the quarrel, that several of the witnesses 
Jiave, on their oaths, declared him to be one of the real par- 
ties to it. The man, whose zeal in conducting it to the de- 
sired conclusion, never flagged; and the extent of which, at 
that time known to all his acquaintances, may now be mea 
sured by you from this circumstance : that for twenty days of 
tedious examination, he never absented himself a single in- 
stant; and even laying aside his clerical character, he acted 
as the counsel of the defendants,* and examined wit- 
nesses in the cause. Even he, was not omitted by the 
person, who it is contended had a discretion to omit whom he 
thought fit! But it is said, those who were known to be 
friendly to Mr. Jones were also summonedo Yea — in truth, 
Dr. Harris, Dr. Moore, and Mr. Feltus were summoned; but 
to have omitted Dr. Harris, rector of St. Mark's in New- 
York, and president of Columbia College, and Dr. R^, C* 
Moore, rector of St. Stephen's, also in New-York, and two of 
the oldest presbyters in the diocese, or Mr. Feltus, rector of 
St. Ann's, Brooklyn, near the city, would have proclaimed 
the character of^ the transaction with a thousand tongues? I 
freely admit the summoning of them was a homage done to 
decency : but they were only three — and those whose opinions 
£vere ascertained, and whose names are actually disclosed ?*? 

* Seep. 210, 213, 

w w 2 



538 

{he evidence and documents, are at least eight. The homage 
to decency, therefore, does not seem to have been unsafe. 

The presbyters thus selected and summoned, met on the 
fifth of November, 1811. Did they then deliberate on the 
merits of the controversy, or on the other matters before 
them ? Oh no ! — A previously drawn and ready engrossed 
instrument, was produced, without a single blank to insert 
the result of a single deliberation, or a single incident that 
might occur in the course of the meeting! Look at the ori- 
ginal instrument in your possession, and you will perceive it 
never had a blank of any kind. How did this monstrous 
thing happen ? I request the arbitrators to suppress their in- 
dignation while I state it. There was a meeting in the Octo- 
tober preceding, of those very presbyters, I believe all,, ex- 
cept Dr. Harris, and Dr. Moore, Mr. Haskill, and Mr. Fe!= 
tus. From them, and from Mr. Jones it was kept a profound 
secret ; but as Dr. Bowen confesses,! Mr. King, one of the 
prosecutors on the part of the vestry, was sent for and con- 
sulted. It was (here decided, that Mr. Jones should be sepa- 
rated from Trinity Church; and that the compensation for 
his removal should be one thousand pounds. After this se- 
cret conclave had decided, (for reasons which will be hereaf- 
ter shewn,) summonses were issued for the meeting in No- 
vember, and there, the ready prepared instrument of award 
was produced, without, even a blank for the sum of compen- 
sation; and it was signed without any deliberation, by all 
but Dr. Harris, Dr. Moore, Mr. Feltus, and Mr. Haskill ! I 
have stated that this meeting was kept a profound secret — it 
was ; but the indiscretion of Mr. Lyell blabbed it ; otherwise 
it never would have been known. He stated it to Mr. Stuy- 
vesantj "some time in the month of October '1811; and as 
he believes, in the early part of that month, he had a conver- 
sation with the reverend Mr. Lyell, in which he told depo- 
nent, that the bishop had shortly before that held a convoca- 
tion of his presbyters, to decide on the case of the plaintiff, 
under the 32d canon ; and that the convocation had detei-% 

i Seep. 236. $ Seep. 126. 



539 

mined, that a separation should take place ; that the vestry 
were to pay the plaintiff his salary, and one thousand pounds; 
that after that determination, Mr. Harison informed them, 
that their proceedings had been irregular; that Mr. Jones 
ought to have been summoned to appear before the convoca- 
tion — and Mr. Lyeli added, that Mr. Jones had been, or 
would be summoned to appear before the convocation that 
would be summoned for the 5th November, then next, when 
they could make the same decision" From this information we 
ascertained the fact : but more than this information we never 
could obtain, till the examination of the witnesses had con- 
siderably advanced. Let me mark out the pains that were 
taken to keep it concealed., We examined Mr. Haskill, Dr. 
Harris, Dr. Moore, and Mr, Feltus, whether 'they were sum- 
moned to, or attended any meeting of the presbyters in Octo- 
ber 1811 : they all answered in the negative. To make this 
non-attendance at the convocation seem to be their own act, 
and their own neglect, interrogatories were put to them. I must 
be permitted to say, on the suggestion of the reverend Mr. 
How, who acted as one of the counsel for the vestry, who 
never was an instant absent, and constantly communicated 
with and suggested to his associate counsel : the object of 
these interrogatories was to make it appear, that the meeting 
in October, was an ordinary regular convocation, such as is 
always held at the bishop's the evening before the convention, 
of which they had notice, and which they might, therefore, 
well have attended. This will sufficiently appear from the 
answers, as they were reduced to writing. Dr. Harris says,§ 
in answer to one of these questions, " it is usual for the cler- 
gy to meet at the bishop's in convocation the day preceding 
the sitting of the convention*" This produced an examina- 
tion on our part, in which he gaid,fl " the deponent has no re- 
collection of any notice having been sent to him to meet a 
convocation immediately preceding the convention in Octo- 
ber 1810 — he did not attend such convocation; and he thinks, 
if he had received such notice he would have attended ; and 
the notice to attend such convocation, which is usually held 

§ Seep. 144. \\ See p. 146, 



the eveiliag before the convention, is generally noted in wri 
iing at the bottom of the notice of the meeting of the con= 
vention ; the deponent attended the convention in October 
1811." To raise the presumption that he must have receiv- 
ed a notice to attend the convocation, Mr. Kow caused him 
again to be questioned— and he answered, " that he does not 
think that he would have attended the convention in October 
3811, without he had received either a written or a verbal 
notice to attend* It is the uniform practice for the clergy to 
meet in convocation at the bishop's the evening preceding 
the meeting of tile convention, and has been so ever since he 
has been in the city of New-York; and knowing that there 
was to be a convention in October 1811, he must necessarily 
have supposed, that there was a previous convocation." 
Misled by this course of examination, and really believing 
that this wag the meeting of which we had been informed, we 
again questioned Dr. Harris, why lie did not attend — he an- 
swered,* " that he would not have attended the meeting of 
the convocation preceding the convention in 1811, unless no- 
tified, under the particular circumstances that then existed." 
Mr. Feltus was questioned on the same subject, — but his an- 
swer quickly ended the enquiry.f " Witness had a notice 
to attend a meeting of the convention in October 1811, but 
no notice subjoined to it, as is usually done, to attend a con- 
vocation the evening before at the bishop's, and did not sup< 
pose that there was a convocation or meeting of the presby- 
ters at the bishop's that evening, because he received no no= 
tice." Dr. Moore also answered,^ " that he did receive a no- 
lice to attend the convention in October 1811, but that no 
notice to attend a previous convocation, as is usual, was an- 
nexed thereto; from which the deponent inferred, that bishop 
Moore was out of town." In this way it was attempted to 
give evidence, as if the convocation was that regularly and 
usually held the daf before the meeting of the convention. 
When it might have been presunied 3 that every presbyter who 
^hose, would be there. But, on the cross-examination of 
Mr. L^ell,§ and not before, ive learned that it was a convo- 



Sa page 147. f Seep. 149. t Seep. 160. § Seep. 242, 



mi 

Nation held the day after the closing of the convention— oi 
which, no kind of notice had been given, except to those^ 
whose presence was desired ; and which was especially held 
to settle Mr. Jones's affair, in the absence, and without the 
knowledge of himself, or any one that would probably be- 
friend him; but in the presence of Mr. King* on behalf of 
the vestry, as Dr. Bowen's testimony afterwards, and for the 
first time disclosed, Need I make a comment on the endea= 
vour to extract from the ignorance or forgetfulness of wit- 
nesses examined on oath, in a course of justice, evidence of 
a fact, which must have been known to be false to the reve- 
rend lawyer, who himself was present at the meeting in Oc- 
tober, as admitted by Dr. Bowen ; and who must, therefore* 
have known that it was held, as the same gentleman testi- 
fies,* at twelve at noon— and the day after the convention, as 
admitted by Mr; Lyell : and not ike evening before the conven- 
tion, as suggested by the questions put to Dr. Harris. 

Yes, in that concealed and secret conclave, to which not 
k friend of Mr. Jones had been previously summoned, his 
doom was sealed : — it was decided to deprive him of his 
bread, and insult him with the offer of a despicable pittance ; 
a mockery of compensation. And this would, it appears* 
have been the final meeting, if Mr. Harison had not inform- 
ed them, that it would be better to summon Mr. Jones"; and 
perhaps, as Dr. Bowen heard, also the four that were omit- 
ted, as they had seats in the convention. What, then, be* 
comes of the boasted liberality displayed in summoning those 1 
four, who were favourable to Mr. Jones ? It was intended to 
conclude the business without their participation or know- 
ledge i arid only, that the reverend actors in this transaction 
had been warned by a layman, and a lawyer, they would 
not have paid even that homage to decency. But if the de- 
cision of that meeting was not intended to be final, as Mr» 
Lyell seems to insinuate, what then Was it intended to be ? 
In that case, the meeting could have been nothing but an as- 
sembly to prejudge, to commit each to the other for his 
opinions and conduct; to combine, and to conspire, in order* 

* Seep. 238, 



5A3 

that at the ulterior meeting, neither the presence oi Mr 
Jones himself, nor his arguments, nor the presence or argu^ 
ments of the absent presbyters, should alter an iota of the 
previously arranged decision. But whether it was to have 
been conclusive or preparatory, it is no matter; for, in No- 
vember, " they could make the same decision." 

And in November they did make the same decision : the 
ready drawn instrument, was accidentally forgotten. Mr. 
Haskill states,* that " the meeting was detained some time; 
and as the deponent understood^ until an instrument of wri- 
ting, which was searched for in the room, and afterwards sent 
for, and brought in, as he believes, by Mr. Lyell; which pa- 
per was afterwards signed by bishop Moore, and a number of 
the presbyters." It was signed by them, though false in its 
statements, and entirely unsuited to the contingencies that 
had occurred. Mr t Jones, it appears, by the testimony of 
Mr. Haskill, Dr. Harris, and Mr. Feltus, never entered into 
the merits of his defence, but protested against the proceed- 
ings on the grounds already laid before you ; the instrument,! 
says " the said Cave Jones, appeared, and was by us fully 
heard in relation to the said controversy/' Dr. Harris, Dr. 
Moore, and Mr. Feltus, also protested; but no notice is ta- 
ken of it in the instrument. Mr. Haskill also voted against 
the proceedings : but it is made to appear, as if no presby- 
ters had been assembled, but those who signed their names, 
and concurred in the sentence. Now, let me seriously ask, 
would the supreme court, in any common case, permit an 
award to stand, respecting which, it had been indubitably es- 
tablished, that some of the arbitrators, in the absence, and 
without the knowledge of the rest, had convened together, 
and having also concealed their meeting from one of the par- 
ties in the controversy, had sent for the other, or his active 
agent; and having communicated with him on the matter in 
dispute, had then determined on their decision in all its par- 
ticulars ; that they afterwards fixed on another meeting, to 
which the rest of the arbitrators and the excluded party were 
summoned^ and there executed a ready prepared award, ex* 

* Seep. 123. f See p.p. 



£43 

actly corresponding with what had been previously and se, 
eretly agreed upon : those arbitrators who had not been par- 
ties to the previous meeting, entirely dissenting ? If the 
persons against whom these facts had been proved, were only 
merchants, lawyers, or mechanics, Avould you think the ad- 
vocate transgressed his duty, or indulged an improper 
warmth, if he arraigned in terms the most pointed and 
severe, the profligate iniquity of such proceedings ? Would 
you sit patiently on your seats, and hear him argue at length, 
that there can be no vice in an award, more signal, more 
contaminating, or more fatal ? Would you not interrupt him, 
and assure him, that while you filled the seats of justice, 
you never would permit such an abominable outrage against 
it to disgrace the community in which we live ? 

But before the atrocity was consummated, Dr. Moore at- 
tempted to dissuade his fellow presbyters, by an address, 
which will recommend itself to the serious attention of the 
arbitrators.* He is repeatedly interrupted, and at length 
forced to desist. In excuse for this, it is urged, that his ad- 
dress was irrelevant, that it went into the merits of the con- 
troversy between Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones, and into a jus* 
fcification of the latter for publishing the Solemn Appeal. Was 
that irrelevant when addressed to the presbyters ? were they 
not to decide the same matters that are now submitted to you ? 
If topics of that kind were improperly urged before them, 
what is the character of all that has been addressed to you 
foy both the opposite counsel, on the subject of compen- 
sation? What was that eloquent, but ill founded phillipic a- 
gainst Mr. Jones, to which you listened yesterday with rivet- 
ted and fixed attention ? Has it in truth no connexion with 
the questions first submitted to the presbyters, and now to 
you, to enquire whether Mr. Jones " first disturbed the peace 
of our Zion," whether he acted from paltry suspicions and 
pitiful envy ? Was all this mass of abuse an invective brought 
into the opposite argument, without any fair applicability ? 
If this style of argument was not irrelevant when used tp 
.you, couid the vindication from it, be improperly brought be»; 

* Sec page 164—170, 



5i& 

fore those, wlio were to decide the same things that you are * 
Were not they to consider the terms on which the connexion 
should be dissolved ? And if you should be induced to retain 
it at its present amount, on account of that publication or any 
misconduct of Mr. Jones, in the early, or any part of the 
disputes, which made the vestry interfere; was not Dr* 
Moore well authorized to ky before his fellow presbyters his 
reasons for thinking Mr. Jones had done nothing wrong in 
publishing, or in any part of his early conduct ? The nature of 
the irrelevancy is, however, pretty clearly to be inferred from 
a fact testified to by Mr, Feltus,* apd Dr. Moore.f Mr. Lyell? 
in one interruption, said this was not the point to come be*? 
fore them, that had been fixed; — -then turning to Dr. Moore 
he said, but you were not there. The irrelevancy was discuss- 
ing what had been previously arranged in a secret meeting; 
and it shews how firmly the decision was, in all its parts, con- 
sidered obligatory on those who had attended that meeting, and 
how little they were open to reconsider any of its arrangments, 
when Mr. Lyell could get up in convocation, on a formal in- 
vestigation in the nature of atrial, and without an universal 
murmur of disapprobation; without the disclaimer of a single 
individual, interrupt one of the judges, delivering his opinion^ 
by the remark, 4: that is not relevant Dr. Moore — that has 
been decided,— Oh no, you were not present." 

But it is said Dr. Moore spoke against bishop Moore — where ? 
I have carefully read the address, and cannot find the paragraph; 
lie was indeed interrupted in one part, where he was stating 
an hypothetical ease of a bishop, which if it could have had any 
application to an existing bishop, could never with propriety, 
be applied to him. No, whatever were the pretences, what- 
ever were the complaints of invective and abuse, which, if 
they had been used, were but too well merited : whatever 
were the alleged irrelevancies, which were only so, because 
they touched upon what bad been previously decided, a peru- 
sal of this address will clearly shew that the interruptions 
were only to preclude deliberation, and to prevent an useless 

t Sec page 149 £ f See page 156. 



543 

mid disagreeable waste of time, in listening to arguments 
against what was irrevocably fixed upon. 

The decision of the presbyters, was handed to Mr. Jones 
at about 7 o'clock in the evening, and he was allowed till 
about ten the next morning, to decide on an act, which would 
fix the miseries of his family ! Those who limited this time 
must have counted on causing to him, a sleepless, anxious 
night. Trinity Church indeed might well answer the next- 
day, having had a month's previous knowiedge of the decis- 
ion; but my client was to answ r er in a few hours whether he 
would accept a mean and pitiful compensation for being 
driven into the world, blasted and ruined, with a stigma on 
his character ; or submit to the ecclesiastical punishment, 
©f suspension from the exercise of his functions ! 

Mr. Depeyster in his evidence,* says, that " of the pres 
byters who sat on the question between the plaintiff and the 
vestry of Trinity Church, all except two or three, had re- 
ceived aid, or were in expectation, directly or indirectly of 
aid from the said vestry." It is the misfortune of our episco- 
pal communion, that most of its ministers are dependent on 
that corporation, and the dangers of that dependency were 
illustrated on this occasion. Dr. Harris, Dr. Moore and 
Mr. Feltus protested against the proceedings, and Mr. Has 
kill voted against them. The suppression of Dr. Beach's 
deposition prevents me from comparing the subsequent con- 
duct of Trinity Church towards Mr. Haskill, with that to- 
ward Mr. Judd, who had voted in their favour. The testi- 
mony in the cause, however, enables me to speak of Br- 
Harris; he it seems, was no longer a fit object for their 
bounty. He had received from them, for some years before, 
a gratuity of five hundred dollars annually, his income from 
St. Mark's being far from considerable. Mr. Depeyster 
states,! " that an annual donation of five hundred dollars, 
which had been paid to Dr. Harris for several years, was 
stopped after the protest of Dr. Harris to the proceedings of 
the presbyters, and the deponent has jiot a shadow 7 of doubt 
that the said allowance was withheld in consequence of Dy, 

* Seep. 1.18, t Seep, U8. 

X-x2 



o&6 

Harris having made the said protest, and the dignified stand 
he took with the plaintiff in the controversy between him 
and Dr. Hobart and Mr. How; and because he would not 
join in the prosecution and persecution of the plaintiff by 
those gentlemen, and would not bow to those gentlemen." 
In excuse for this act, it is alleged to have been done, because 
he had recently been honoured with the situation of presi- 
dent of Columbia College, having a salary of five hundred 
dollars a year; and Mr. Clark and Mr. Laight have been ex- 
amined to prove that this reason was assigned in the ves- 
try for discontinuing the gratuity. Mr. Laight says that it 
was the reason of his vote. I have no doubt of it, and only 
regret that he was the dupe of such a pretext : in proportion 
as he lives in the world, he will learn that men seldom assign 
a motive they are ashamed of, for an act they wish to do; it 
is little difficult to find a plausible excuse to justify a favourite 
measure. May I be permitted to say frankly with Mr. De- 
peyster, that though it may have influenced Mr. Laight, I 
do not believe it was the reason of the vestry; if it were, it 
would at least show a determination on their part that he 
should derive no additional comfort or ease of circumstance* 
from the respect of his fellow citizens, or the more intense 
application of his time and talents. But another circum- 
stance sufficiently developes the motive for this act ; it is 
proved by the testimony of Mr. Jarvis;* and that I may not mis 
represent it, I will give it in his own words : " The deponent 
says that prior to good Friday, in the year 1812, he was in 
the habit of exchanging pulpits with Dr. Harris, and did ex- 
change with him on that day; soon after which the deponent 
received an intimation from Dr. Bo wen, that the deponent's 
exchanging pulpits with Dr. Harris was not approved of by 
bishop Moore. The deponent requested Dr. Bowen to ask 
bishop Moore to make a communication on the subjeet to the 
deponent in writing. Some short time afterwards, Dr. Bow- 
en requested the deponent to call and see bishop Moore, 
which he did, and received from bishop Moore a written com- 
munication, a copy of which he afterwards sent in a letter to 

- See p. l"'l 



Dr. Harris, a copy of which letter is now produced, and 
hereunto annexed. In consequence of receiving the afore- 
said communication from bishop Moore, the deponent did ab- 
stain from exchanging pulpits with Dr. Harris. In the inter- 
view aforesaid, between bishop Moore and the deponent, bi- 
shop Moore asked the deponent whether he knew that Dr. 
Harris had protested against his, bishop Moore's authority,, 
and the deponent answering that he heard such protest had 
been entered, but that he had never seen it, bishop Moore 
showed the deponent a paper signed by Dr. Harris, which de» 
ponent understood to be the protest entered by Dr. Harris and 
others, to the proceedings of bishop Moore and his presbyters 
in the business of the plaintiff. The deponent says that he 
understood Dr. Moore and Mr. Feltus had signed the afore- 
said protest, and he therefore considered himself equally 
bound, by the aforesaid written communication, to abstain 
from exchanging pulpits with those gentlemen." Indeed he 
Was right, for the bishop's order is as follows: 

" New-York, April 21th, 1812. 

" This is to certify, that I think it improper for Mr. Jarvis 
to invite any of the clergymen who have protested against 
Hie authority of the churchy to officiate in his pulpit." 

Signed BENJAMIN MOORE. 

Protested against the authority of the church, because 
they protested that bishop Proovoost was the diocesan! as 
if the whole authority of the church centred in the diocesan 
authority of bishop Moore, and none in the supreme episco- 
pal jurisdiction of the house of bishops. But here, by one 
stroke of proscription, those three gentlemen are put under 
the ban ; they are to be excluded from professional intercourse 
or civility with other ministers, and as far as possible, made 
unpopular and disagreeable to their congregations, for an 
act, that, if in truth it were an offence against the authority 
of the church, should have received open ecclesiastical cen- 
sure ; and not be punished by secret ecclesiastical intrigue 
I speak of this act the more freely, because, conscientiously 



Bh8 

I QOiiol consider it the act of bishop Moore. His establish 
ed character, before a severe visitation of Providence had 
compelled him to seek for episcopal assistance, forbids my 
attributing to him* any thing harsh or unamiable. Indeed 
the bign sounding expression " the authority of the church,'* 
and its threadbare application* betray, to my mind, the au- 
thor of the measure. But I lament it as a misfortune, cast- 
ing a shade over the latter years of a venerable prelate, and 
strongly confirming the opinions of some of the witnesses, 
that he was neither fit in body nor in mind, to be present at 
the meeting in November 1811, when I perceive the only 
episcopal acts performed by bishop Moore, since the conven- 
tion in May, 1811, were his presiding at that meeting, 
and suspending Mr. Jones for not submitting to its decision, 
ftnd his prohibition to other clergymen of professional inter- 
course with Dr. Harris, Br. Moore, and Mr. Feltus, for pro- 
testing against those proceedings* I wonder, under the ar- 
guments of bishop Hobart, in the Statement,* sinca the re- 
storation of his health, does not admit the exercise of gene- 
ral jurisdiction, and the complete jurisdiction was delegated 
to his assistant, what right he had to interfere in these parti- 
cular cases : but I suppose the impropriety was overlooked, 
in consequence of the convenience of bis appearing as the 
actor, to do whatever w r as harsh, censurable, or unpopular. 

Let me now advert to certain arguments, which to my ut- 
ter surprise, have been urged to preclude you from examining 
into the legality of the proceedings before the presbyters, — at 
least, so far as relates to the authority of them, and of the 
bishop, and to the applicability of the canon. You have 
been told, that you can interfere only so far as a court of law 
■would do, and that a court of law would not interfere to set 
those proceedings aside; for that, by the 32d canon, to 
which the plaintiff, in common with the other episcopalians 
assented, the bishop and his presbyters are made judges of 
ihe facts, whether differences exist; and whether they can^ 
«?ot be reconciled; and whether it was indispensably ne- 
cessary to dissolve the connection; that they have decided 

* See page J 6'.. 



5*9 

all those three facte, and this is an attempt to appeal from the 
judges of the plaintiff's own choice, to the judges of a civil 
tribunal : that as to the diocesan power of bishop Moore, 
since there exists in this country no religious establishment! 
the right to fill the offices of each religious congregation must 
be decided by itself, and the municipal courts cannot in- 
terfere: that the state convention, which is the ecclesiastical 
authority of this state for the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
has decided the question, and that decision binds every tribu- 
nal in this state : that the bishop, having the ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction of our church in the state, is the proper judge 
who are his presbyters ! and that their decision must bind 
the plaintiff whether right or wrong. I have delayed no- 
ticing any of those observations until I could properly collect 
them together, because, I think, the same mode of answer- 
ing, will suffice for all ; and because, they have one charac- 
ter — they are urged in breach of compact. I have already 
had occasion to refer to the correspondence between the com- 
mittee of the episcopalians at large, and the committee of the 
vestry of Trinity church, which led to this arbitration ; — I 
then showed that this cause was conducting contrary to good 
faith. Let me again resume my references, to prove the same 
assertion, in another instance: From the evidence,* it ap- 
pears, that the committee of the vestry proposed to submit to 
arbitrators " all the existing legal differences now subsisting 
between the vestry and Mr. Jones." To this proposal, the 
committee of episcopalians replied, noticing it, and marking 
the word " legal" in italics. They then proceed: " Permit us, 
gentlemen, to remark, that we have, in our letter to the ves- 
try, already had the honour to propose to them, to submit all 
questions and differences subsisting between them and our 
constituents, (including those existing between the vestry and 
Mr. Jones,) to the arbitrament of independent and impartial 
men; if, therefore, it be your intentions to propose to us an 
arbitration equally extensive — that is, one embracing all the 
existing differences before mentioned, we hasten to commit* 
liicate to you, our joyful acceptance of it : — but if you mean 

* Seepage 180, 131. 



B66 

to offer an arbitration, limited and confined to*.a portion of 
those controversies, to the exclusion of others of them, as the 
words Ugal differences seem to imply, then we take the lib* 
erty of requesting you to specify the particular differences or 
points, to which you propose the arbitration should be confin- 
ed." The committee of the vestry, in answer, say,* " we 
used that term," (legal differences) " to designate, without a 
minute enumeration of particulars, those matters which we 
think the proper subjects of an arbitration. We intended to 
submit every iking which could properly be discussed in a 
court of justice, in any suit between Mr. Jones and the ves- 
try: and the better to enable the arbitrators to make a final 
and satisfactory arrangement, we now T beg leave, further to 
propose, that if they should think the proceedings heretofore 
had against Mr. Jones illegal, they shall then proceed to 
make such award, as under existing circumstances shall ap- 
pear to them best calculated to do justice to the parties in dif- 
ference, and to promote the peace and harmony of the 
church." To this the committee of episcopalians answer,f 
il we accede to this proposal, with the following explanations 
of our understanding of it, viz: — That the arbitrators shall de- 
cide upon the legality of the proceedings and sentence of the con- 
vocation against Mr. Jones ; that we shall he at liberty to im- 
peach their validity for any cause, which the arbitrators may 
deem sufficient to render them invalid; that if the arbitrators 
shall decide that the sentence is illegal, then Mr. Jones shall 
retain his office of assistant minister of Trinity Church, with 
the usual emoluments, as heretofore; and that, if they shall 
adjudge the sentence to be legal, then they shall determine 
the terms upon which he shall resign that office." The com- 
mittee of the vestry, replying to those explanations, say,J 
" in those explanations we concur with you, except as to one 
point, concerning which, we are not certain that we apprehend 
your meaning," and which has no relation to this matter. 
The committee of episcopalians closed the correspondence 
thus :§ " your understanding of the explanation, contained in 
our letter of last evening, is correct; we presume, therefore, 

* Seepage 182> f See page 18$. ± Seep. 134. § See p.. Id 5, 



551 

that the selection of arbitrators, is all that remains to be 
done." Here was an unequivocal understanding and agreement 
that the legality of the proceedings and sentence of convoca* 
tion were to be impeached for any cause; and we are now 
told at the hearing, that you can only do what a court of law 
could do, and that a court of law could not interfere with or 
examine the legality of the proceedings, or of the sentence of 
convocation; that we are not to be heard as to any matte? 
that might impeach the validity of those proceedings, or of 
that sentence ! Supposing the objection to have any weight, 
is it fair or honourable to make it? Are we to be tricked and 
duped in this way by the committee of the vestry, or their 
constituents, who are represented here? I do not mean to 
enter largely into any reply to this objection, because, ex- 
hausted as I am by the excessive length of this address, I 
must necessarily omit many things, and there is nothing I 
can more safely confide, without argument, to the superior 
talents and competency of the arbitrators than this; it is am 
objection, such as their judicial habits render them peculiar 
ly conversant with. Let me, however, observe, that Mr. 
Jones being deprived of his salary, has brought an action 
for it: the defence is a sentence of a body of very limited ju- 
risdiction, dissolving the contract under which his right of 
action would arise: that contract can only be dissolved by 
particular persons, expressly described in the instrument 
from which their jurisdiction is derived; and they cannot 
have jurisdiction, unless particular circumstances have pre- 
viously taken place. Must not, then, the discussion neces- 
sarily arise, whether the persons who have undertaken to act 
in dissolving the contract, are in truth, those described in the 
instrument, under which they claim their jurisdiction ; and if 
they are, whether the circumstances have previously taken 
place, without which, even they have no power to act? 
Must not our municipal courts always examine, whenever the 
matter incidentally arises, into the powers of acting, and the 
extent of jurisdiction, of every private body claiming to pos- 
sess it ? And as to the question of diocesan, would not a 
court of justice be obliged to consider, whether the state 
convention was itself a body competent to pronounce upon, or 



S$2 

having jurisdiction of that question, before it received their 
sentence as conclusive upon it? But even if there could 
possibly be a doubt upon this reasoning, I hope and trust 
the arbitration bond is sufficiently extensive to cover every 
thing — the action is submitted,* " and all other matters 
which could properly be discussed in a court of juistice, in 
any suit or action between them, the said parties." If to car- 
ry into effect the unquestionable agreement of the two com- 
mittees, there be a necessity for large construction, the words 
of the bond will admit of it ; any suit or action will extend to 
a wager, to a feigned issue, to any proceeding or proceed- 
ings, legal or equitable, in which issues could be joined to 
bring into discussion, any, or every one successively, of the 
points urged against the validity of the sentence and proceed- 
ings under the canon: — this was undoubtedly the intention of 
the parties, and the reason why the words of the bond are so 
extensive. 

The only remaining question I shall discuss, is that of 
compensation. If I have succeeded in shewing, that from 
the first interference of the vestry censuring Mr. Jones'a 
pamphlet, to the completion of the proceedings before the bi- 
shops and presbyters, the measures taken against him have 
been injustice heaped upon injustice; and, as bishop Pro- 
voost considered them, totally unauthorized by the constitu- 
tion and canons of our church, and not sanctioned by the 
principles of our religion or humanity: If I have succeeded 
in establishing any one of the many objections, which appear 
to me all demonstrated, it can scarcely be necessary to en- 
quire into the compensation awarded him by the bishop and 
presbyters ; nor, if the most valuable principles of our muni- 
cipal and of the canon law have been violated, in order to ef- 
fect a dissolution of his connexion with Trinity Church, will 
you put us to compensation for relinquishing that connexion? 
If you declare those proceedings unauthorized and ille- 
gal, and therefore restore him, so far as your powers 
extend, to his rightful situation, as assistant minister of 
that church; whatever future arrangements he may make 

* Seep. 13. 



5S& 

will be voluntary, and unaccompanied with that stain upoft 
iiis character, which your confirmation of the measures pur- 
sued against him, would seem to leave. Having made 
our views on this point clearly understood, I shall proceed 
with a few remarks on the compensation awarded him, and its 
utter inadequacy. 

You could not but have observed, that the discussion of 
this part of the subject excited the strongest emotions of sym- 
pathy in the opposite counsel. Enlisted as they are by pro- 
fessional duty — bound as they are by the ties of friendship and 
personal attachment — misguided, as I fear they are, by pre- 
judices and passions, artfully excited, and extensively diffu- 
sed — yet, when they paused to collect themselves for the 
argument of this point, their mental vision caught a domestic 
scene of suffering and affliction, and they revolted at their 
office. My learned friend, who spoke last, declared it one of 
the most painful tasks of his life ; and the starting tear, and 
trembling voice, bore ample testimony to the truth of his as- 
sertion. When I saw him, I confess, I rejoiced, and said 
within myself — his heart has spoken to our judges; now let 
his lips give utterance to the suggestions of his clients. But 
if they, if his opponents and adversaries pity him, in what 
manner am I to address you, who have acquired in this cause 
the most entire conviction, that I am defending an oppressed 
and injured man ; and who have frequently reflected with 
grief and indignation, on the remorseless sentence, lhat was 
intended to cast without a crime, into distress, and, if possi- 
ble, into poverty and bereavement, not only my client, but 
the universally respected and most interesting partakers c£ 
his fortunes ? — not in language calculated to excite your pity ; 
for it is not that which I seek or claim; but with the frank- 
ness of truth, I will complete this picture of persecution and 
oppression. 

Mr. Jones, as assistant minister of Trinity Church, had 
an office, equivalent to one for life. Dr. Beach, when per- 
sonally examined in presence of the arbitrators,* testified, 

* This examination has been accidentally omitted; hit except 
for this one point, is not material, 

YJ2 



o5% 

£fiat ft was considered as a call for life. Mr. Van Wagenen,* 
Mr. DominickJ and Dr. Moore,§ also prove, that to be the 
manner in which it has always been considered. This is es- 
tablished by the affair of Mr. Bissett, mentioned by Mr. Do- 
minick, and is indeed acknowledged by the committee of the 
vestry of Trinity Church, in their second report ;|| for when 
they say that the engagement may, for sufficient cause, at any 
time be dissolved by either party, they impliedly admit it 
Cannot be dissolved without sufficient cause; therefore, is not 
held during pleasure, but during good behaviour; but most 
undoubtedly, an office that is held during good behaviour, and 
of which a party cannot be deprived without sufficient cause, 
is, in the eye of the law, an office during life. This is, in 
truth, the tenure of all pastoral connexions, where the con- 
trary is not specified. It is the original, reasonable discipline 
of the church, as declared in the 29th general canon, that the 
station of a minister shall not depend on any thing else than 
his own soundness in the faith or worthy conduct. It is pe- 
culiarly the tenure by which Mr. Jones held his situation un- 
der his call, coupled and construed with the charter of the 
church, as being in pari materia. Mr. Jones's call,** is t<? 
accept the office of an assistant minister in the churches un- 
£er the care of the vestry of Trinity Church, upon the same 
terms, on which the other assistant ministers are placed. To 
make this certain, it is only necessary to ascertain what are 
the terms upon which the other assistant ministers are placed, 
Dr. Hobart's call is given in the evidence,!! and he also is 
called on the same terms, on which the other assistant min- 
isters are placed. Dr. Hobart was then called on the same 
terms as Dr. Beach, who was the senior assistant minister. 
It is said he was not assistant rector under the charter, until 
he was so nominated in March 1811; and this opinion, enter- 
tained by Mr. King, and perhaps, by others, was the caust 
of that nomination. Perhps, it was a prudential act — but I 
see no reason for saying he was not previously the assistant 

! Seep. 120. % S£ ep- 123. § Seep. 156. || Seep. 5, ** Sep 
p. 24. ff Seep. 192. 



boa 

Mentioned in the charter. The words of that instrument* 
are, " that the rector for the time, shall and may, by and 
with the consent of the said vestrymen and church wardens 
for the time being, or any eleven or more of them, whereof 
one of the church wardens to be one, from time to time nom- 
inate one able protestant minister in priest's orders, to reside 
in said parish, to be preacher and assistant to said rector and his 
successors, in the celebration of the divine offices of praying 
and preaching, and other duties incident to be performed in 
the said church and parish, as the said rector shall require o£ 
him." By an antecedent part of the charter, it is provided, 
that all the corporate acts shall be done by M the said vestry- 
men, or any eleven or more of them, whereof the rector for 
the time being, or his assistant, or clerk by appointment, and 
©ne of the church wardens to be two:" so that the expressions 
" vestrymen and church wardens for the time being, or any 
eleven or more of them, whereof one of the church wardens 
to be one," mean no more than that the appointment shall be 
at a regular meeting of the vestry. What then is necessary 
to make the senior assistant minister a charter officer ? No* 
thing, but that he shall be a priest, nominated by the rector 
at a regular meeting of the vestry. Such a nomination by 
the rector, is always made in the case of an assistant minis 
ter: it was even done in the case of Mr. Jones, as appears 
by the evidence ;f although the opposite counsel have mista- 
kenly supposed the contrary— and, in truth, if the charter 
office had been vacant, every requisite was performed, in his 
case, to enable him to fill it— but, Dr. Beach was, I think, 
the assistant rector before the nomination in 1811; and such 
seems to have been the previously received opinion, as, be- 
fore 1811, no one was ever appointed assistant rector in the 
same way, even during the absence of bishop Provoost, when 
lie went to England to be consecrated. If then, Dr. Beach 
was the charter officer, by its express provisions, he was to 
hold for life, except displaced for some offence. Dr. Hobart 
•V?a« called in reference to Dr. Beach's tenure, and was there- 

* See p, 22, f See p. .103. 



556 

fore for lite — and Mr. Jones's call has reference to both ; so 
that, by the express contract of the vestry, construed as it 
necessarily must be by the charter, Mr. Jones was called for 
life: the vestry having uniformly conformed themselves to 
the correct discipline of the church, as declared in the 29th 
canon, until, for the purpose of keeping power in their hands, 
they more recently adopted a resolution in contradiction to 
that discipline, and in disregard to the canon. 

Having ascertained the nature of his tenure, let us con- 
eider the value of his office. The nominal salary at the first 
appointment was 5001. — but by various resolutions, its emolu- 
ments were augmented to 11001. a year; as Mr. Depeyster 
has stated,* these gratuities were intended to be annually 
continued, and so in fact have been, ever since, to the as- 
sistant ministers. He had then a call for life to a situation 
worth 11001. a year, and when it is thought expedient to re- 
move him, without any crime or immorality on his part, but 
only to gratify the feelings or meet the the views of individu- 
als, he is awarded as a compensation for this life annuity of 
1 1001. — 10001. ; less than the amount for one year, and the 
annual interest of which does not exceed 701. ! And this 
while on the right rev. prelate, who was his opponent, addi- 
tional gratuities are accumulated, increasing his emoluments 
to 15001. I do not mean to speak with any thing like disap- 
probation of this liberality, although the vestry in exercising 
it, were certainly actuated by very different sentiments from 
what influenced their conduct, when they withdrew from Dr. 
Harris five hundred dollars, after he was appointed president 
of Columbia College. 

But it is said, Mr. Jones is removed with no stigma on 
his character, and he may obtain a settlement elsewhere. 
What the effect of that decision on Mr. Jones's character 
ought to be, the gentlemen have rightiy stated; but what it 
has been, is very different from their present representations. 
The nature and the result of the proceedings against him. 
bare been very much mistated, either ignorantly. or design- 

* Seep.Ud. 



£67 

edly, in the other parts of the union. Of tiiis, permit me 
to specify an instance : in Maryland, a question has been 
agitated concerning the appointment of a suffragan bishop; 
and it has given rise to a number of pamphlets. In one of 
them, which alludes to the unhappy differences in our church 
in this diocese, the writer, I presume, having no friends or 
correspondents here, from whom he could have learned that 
this decision was no stigma, describes Mr. Jones as one whom 
the church had marked with the stamp of her deepest repro- 
bation ; and calls him an ecclesiastical convict ! I trust this is 
no overflowing of domestic defamation, which has been con- 
veyed to foreign parts, by secret channels, and devoted par- 
tizans. I hope the reverend author has not been led by any 
personal attachments or clerical party connexions deliberate- 
ly to utter a wilful lie — that he is only a mistaken controver- 
sialist, and not a malevolent calumniator. But the expres- 
sions show the fallacy of the assertion, that Mr. Jones's cha- 
racter does not suffer abroad, from the decision of the pres- 
byters, it is and must be misundertood ; his ministerial use- 
fulness is and must be undermined, and the chance of ano- 
ther advantageous settlement rendered excessively precari- 
ous. The compensation of 10001. then, is not only for his 
situation, worth 11001. annually, during his life, but for the 
uneasiness he has endured, for the injuries inflicted on his 
character — for his wounded respectability as a minister of 
the gospel ; and for the ruin of his future prospects. 

The learned counsel have scarcely sought to conceal their 
desires; the respectable among Mr. Jones's opponents, all 
concur that the compensation should be much large-. ME& 
King in his testimony has expressed his wishes that if ;d 
be liberal. I believe him ; for I do not suppose he was ac- 
tuated by any personal hostility to the plaintiff or his fami- 
ly ; but a spell was cast upon his mind, " Jones must quit the 
diocese!" Yes, if he cannot rescue himself from the conse- 
quences of the proceedings had against him, he must not 
only quit the diocese, but ail hfs ecclesiastical labours. You 
have been asked, can you restoie him to his clerical func= 
tlons ? I answer no; and you shouid therefore take into con- 
sideration, that his adversaries may still find means of coin- 



BU 

polling him to remain as he is : in which case, he must re^ 
main without a living ! — that he is now sunk down from a 
respectable opulence, earned by his services, to 701. a year, 
with a wife and family ; — and why ? is it possible that so 
small and contemptible a sum could have been agreed upon, 
for any other reason, but as furnishing the means of forcing 
him by negociation, to leave the diocese, in order to acquire 
the means of subsisting. It is, when well considered, the 
conclusion of a clear, connected, systematic plan, disclosed 
in the frequently repeated words " he must quit the diocese.' 5 
In addressing you, I name no sum ; if (which I trust you 
never will) you should enter into the discussion of this part 
of the case, I put it to you, as I wouM to a most en- 
lightened and well informed jury; I ask you to reward 
those services which were never questioned, that character, 
which even in the midst of bitter persecution never was im 
peached, and should you think that in the early part of these 
disputes, he may have done an imprudent act, has he not 
already suffered for it a tenfold measure of punishment ? 

I have now gone through my argument, I have exhausted 
myself; I fear I have exhausted the arbitrators. The great 
"variety of matter incidentally brought under consideration, has 
presented some questions, with which I maybe supposd lobe 
more conversant, than even the arbitrators, from my early 
habits of living and education, as weR as from my profession- 
al studies in a country, where the protestant episcopal church 
has a legal establishment, and where the principles and prac- 
tice of its discipline are familiar. If that be the fact, they are the 
only points, as to which I should presume to enter into com- 
parison. But if it be so, however much I might feel myself 
at liberty, on ordinary occasions of professional argument, 
■to leave to superior learning and judgment the discovery and 
detection of its errors or weakness ; yet trust me, on the 
doctrines of out church and the principles of its discipline 
standing as I do, an episcopalian myself, I would not dare to 
mislead you; the earnest desire of success would not induce 
me to state any thing on those subjects, which I did not seri- 
ously and conscientiously believe to be the law of the church. 



559 

Of many of its ministers, I have been compelled to speaS, 
hi terms of considerable severity. No man could lament the 
necessity more than I do — I have thus spoken with grief and 
pain : and nothing but an ardent love of justice, and an in- 
dignant sense of oppression could have extorted from me 
those remarks. I know that the character of a clergyman, as 
well as of a female, should be treated with delicacy and res- 
pect; and I am sensible, that he who ventures to take impro- 
per liberties with either, will receive well merited punish= 
ment from public reprobation; — but I must be permitted to 
add, that clergymen, as well as females, if they expect that 
delicate and respectful treatment, must themselves avoid 
shocking the decency and delicacy of their admirers. No 
man is more willing, at all times, and more uniformly accus- 
tomed to treat the ecclesiastical members of my own, and of 
every other communion, with marked respect; but I confess, 
I cannot, therefore, yield to the cry, which has been raised 
in this, as in many other cases, that an exposure of a minis- 
ter's misconduct, is an injury to the religion he professes. I 
do not think so lightly of religion; nor do I believe it to rest 
on so poor a basis, as the personal respectability, or private 
character of any of its preachers. If they have acquired the 
purity of heart, and habits of virtue, which a frequent, due, 
and diligent meditation on the truths they teach, is calculated 
to create and to confirm, they deserve the love and venera- 
tion of the world ; and perhaps, it may sometimes be politic, 
as v/ell as charitable, to throw a veil over many of those oc= 
casional weaknesses, which show that the frailty of human 
nature cannot always be corrected, even by the precepts of 
the gospel. But this charity and policy has certain limits, 
and undoubtedly ought not to be extended to the more impor- 
tant occurrences of life, or the higher branches of morality. 
It is under this point of view I have regarded the transactions 
connected with this unhappy controversy ; and I have not 
believed that it comported with the dignity, character, or 
welfare of our church, to wrap them up in silence, or treat 
them with disproportioned lenity. That church is said to 
have received in those disputes, many and deep wounds: I fear 
she has-— but 5 though it may be natural, and not unamiable, I 



B60 

cannot, therefore, deem wise or prudent, the affectionate 
weakness of those, who turn away their heads, and will 
neither examine, nor even look at those wounds ; who will 
neither permit them to be probed, nor endeavour to ascertain 
by what they were caused, or how they were received — they 
must be approached with more scrutinizing eyes — with a more 
skilful and steady hand : to be cured, they must be laid open. 
The person who undertakes this office, is not, therefore, to be 
supposed destitute of feeling for the pain he must inflict; but 
if he is experienced in human folly, he will be prepared for 
senseless accusations of barbarity, and for the murmurs of 
the weak and ignorant. From those whom I now address, I 
expect no such reproaches; on the contrary, to them, as 
skilful and selected physicians, I commit the care of our suf- 
fering church. I have only touched her wounds, to shew to 
them, their nature, extent, and danger; but I now call upon 
them to examine for themselves— to probe, to lay open? an£ 
then to heal. 



AWARD! 



TO all persons to whom these Presents shall come or may cofa 
cern — WHEREAS Cave Jones, of the city of New-York , clerk, 
hath commenced an action in the Supreme Court agaiiw the 
Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New-York in communion 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state of New-York, to 
recover his salary and compensation as an Assistant Minister in* 
the employ and service of the said Rector and Inhabitants — And 
whereas the said Rector and Inhabitants, and the said Cave 
Jones did agree to submit the said action, and all other matters 
which could properly be discussed in a court of justice in any 
suit or actio?i between them the said parties, to the award, arbi- 
trament and determination of James Kent, Smith Thompson? 
Ambrose Spencer, William W. Van Ness, and Joseph C. Yates? 
or any three of them, abitralors indifferently elected, chosen and 
named, as well by and on the part and behalf of the said Rector 
and Inhabitants, as of the said Cave Jones, as by the bonds of 
submission mutually executed and interchanged by the said par- 
ties, and bearing date the fourteenth day of July, in the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twelve, reference being 
thereunto had will more fully and at large appear — And where- 
as the time mentioned in the said bonds for making the said 
award was of ter wards, by the said parties, enlarged to the first 
day of November next. — Now therefore, know ye, that we the 
above named arbitrators having taken upon ourselves the burthen 
of the said arbitrament, and having heard the allegations and 

a z2 



362 

proofs of the said parties, do, by these presents, award and ad- 
judge as follows, to wit : 

1st. We award and adjudge, that the said action of the said- 
Cave Jones against the said Rector and Inhabitants cease, and be 
no further prosecuted. 

2d. We award and adjudge, that the said Rector and Inhab- 
itants pay to the said Cave Jones, on or before the first day of 
November next, the sum of Seven Thousand Five Hundred 
Dollars, together with the actual balance due the said Cave Jones 
on the 5th day of November 1811, J or services previously render- 
ed by him, to the said Rector and Inhabitants, 

3d. We award and adjudge, thai the said Cave Jones, at 
the same time execute, under his hand and seal, and deliver to 
the said Rector and Inhabitants, a release of all actions, claims 
and demands whatsoever in law or equity arising or to arise up- 
en any contract, matter or thing mentioned or referred to in the 
recitals contained in the said bends of submission. 

In witness whereof the said arbitrators have hereunto set their 
hands and seals, this twenty-fifth day of October, one thou- 
mivd eight hundred and thirteen. 

JAMES KENT, 
SMITH THOMPSON, 
AMBROSE SPENCER. 
W. W. VAN NESS, 
JOSEPH C, YATES, 



APPENDIX 



The following depositions of Dr. Beach, and Mr. Law- 
rence were offered as evidence in this cause by the plaintiff's 
counsel, on the third day after the argument was begun at 
Albany, and objected to by the defendant's counsel, on two 
grounds. 

1. Because the parties had entered into a written agree- 
ment that all the evidence on both sides should be taken on 
or before the 1 5th instant ; and that the interrogatories on 
which Dr. Beach and Mr. Lawrence had been examined 
were not completed and sent from New-York till the 15th; 
that they were examined on the , and that their depo- 
sitions were therefore not taken in time. 

2. Because it was in the power of the defendants to have 
contradicted, by other witnesses, the most material parts sta- 
ted in those depositions, if they had been taken in time to 
have known their contents ; and which they had lost the op* 
portunity of doing, by the omission of the plaintiff to examine 
tiie witnesses within the time agreed upon, or even taking 
any measures for their examination, until the last day oh 
which testimony could be taken. 



Interrogatories to be exhibited to the rev. Abraham Beach, 
D. D. of New-Brunswick in the state of New-Jersey, on the 
part of the rev. Cave Jones in a certain arbitration depending 
between him and the rector and inhabitants of the city of 
New-York in the communion of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the state of New- York. 



1. Were not you an assistant minister of Trinity Church 
an New-York for several years previous to the settlement of 
Mr. Jones, and some time since the proceedings in his case ? 
Pray mention the time of settlement, and of resignation. 

To the first interrogatory saith, that he entered on the du- 
ties of assistant minister of Trinity Church, New- York, on 
the 7th July, 1784, and resigned on the 4th March, 181^, 



36* 

2. During that time, what was the usage of the church 
in New-York as to the settlement of the clergy ; and what 
do you understand to have been always the established 
usage, in relation to the tenure of the office of the assistant 
ministers ? 

To the second interrogatory saith, that there was nothing 
expressed in his call respecting its duration, but supposed it 
was to continue during good behaviour; and he never knew 
any usage to the contrary. 

3. Did the case of Mr. Bisset afford any, and what illus- 
tration on the subject of the foregoing enquiry? 

To the third interrogatory saith, that it is not in his power 
to give any account of Mr. Bissett's call or resignation. 

4. How long did you act in the capacity of assistant rec- 
tor? Did you ever know or hear of an officer in that capaci- 
ty, before your own case? Did not Dr. Provoost, while he 
was rector of Trinity Church, go to Europe for consecration ? 
Was any assistant rector appointed in his absence ? 

To the fourth interrogatory saith, that he continued to act 
in the capacity of assistant rector in Trinity Church about 
two years; that he knew of no officer in that capacity before 
his own appointment ; that doctor Provoost did go to Europe 
for consecration while he was rector of Trinity Church, and 
that he never heard any assistant rector was appointed in his 
absence. 

5. What was the amount of salary and of compensation of 
the assistant ministers of late years ? Has not the compen- 
sation or complement, voted by the vestry, been made a part 
of the salary, though of different amounts, ever since the set- 
tlement of Mr. Jones in Trinity Church ? Was not this 
complement always voted to all the assistant ministers at the 
same time, and to the same amount ? And was it not count- 
ed on with equal certainty, as the nominal salary of 5001. ? 
What was the salary and compensation of Dr, Hobart and 
Mr. How for the last two years ? 

To the fifth interrogatory saith, that the stated salary of an 
assistant minister from the time of his acting as such, till 
some time about the year eighteen hundred and four, was 
five hunched pounds per annum : two hundred pounds per an- 
num was then added to the salary ; this addition to continue 
for seven years, and no longer : besides the stated salaries, 
:he vestry, for about sixteen or eighteen years last past, vo- 
ted a gratuity to each of the assistant ministers, of at first 
one hundred pounds per annum, afterwards two hundred 
pounds; and for several years past, of four hundred pounds 
per annum. These gratuities were voted to the assistant 






5t>5 

ministers at the same time. It was, however, expected, 
that the gratuity would be annually repeated, though it was 
optional with the vestry to withhold it if they thought pro- 
per. The salary and compensation of Dr. Hobart and Mr. 
How* for the last two years, was eleven hundred pounds per 
annum each. 

6. Were not you president of the house of clerical and 
lay deputies in the general convention of 1801, when bishop 
Moore Avas consecrated? Under what impression did you 
understand that body to have signed the testimonials of Dr. 
Moore, and to have attended his consecration? In what ca- 
pacity did you understand bishop Moore to act, previous to 
the state convention of October 1812? 

To the sixth interrogatory saith, that he was president of 
the general convention in the year 1801, when bishop Moore 
was consecrated ; that with respect to the impression under 
which that body signed his testimonial, he can only say, 
that they did it in consequence of the resolution passed on 
■that subject by the house of bishops; that from the consecra- 
tion of bishop Moore until his illness, he performed all the 
functions of bishop in the state of New-York. 

7. Were not you president of the vestry of Trinity 
Church, during the whole of the time that the business was 
agitated concerning Mr. Jones ? 

To the seventh interrogatory saith, that he was president 
of the vestry of Trinity Church during the time the business 
was agitated concerning Mr. Jones. 

8. At the time that the first resolution was passed by that 
body on the 13th of May 1811, expressive of their disappro- 
bation of Mr. Jones's publishing; did you understand that 
any controversy or divisions then existed, or had previously 
existed between Mr. Jones and that body ? 

To the eighth interrogatory saith, that when the resolution 
of the 13th May, 1811, was passed, he knew of no contro- 
versy, but perceived the members of the vestry to be violent- 
ly incensed against Mr. Jones for publishing his " Solemn 
Appeal." 

9. From the time of passing the above mentioned resolu- 
tion in May, till the 5th of September 1811, at which time 
the resolution was adopted of proceeding against Mr. Jones, 
was any committee appointed to wait on him ; was any offi- 
cial information imparted to him by the vestry of the exis- 
tence of differences; or was any official communication In 
any way whatever made between them and him on the sub= 
ject? 



am 

To the ninth interrogatory saith, that he does not rentem* 
:»er tliat any communication took place between the vestry 
and Mr, Jones, other than that the clerk was directed to fur- 
nish him with a copy of the resolution. 

10. If differences and controversies did exist between 
them ; were any means taken by the vestry to heal those .dif- 
ferences? 

To the tenth interrogatory saitli, that he did not know of 
any differences existing between them. 

11. Bid not Mr. Jones write a letter to the vestry, dated 
September 4, 1811 ; was not the same delivered to the ves- 
try at the time when they adopted the report of their com 
mittee to proceed against Mr. Jones ; and what were the pro= 
ceedings of the vestry thereupon ? 

To the eleventh interrogatory saith, that the vestry did 
receive a letter from Mr. Jone3 in or about September, 1811, 
when they adopted the report of the committee to proceed 
against him ; but as to the proceedings of the vestry there 
upon, the deponent cannot take it upon himself now to state 
them from memory, but must refer to the minutes of that 
)>ody. 

12. Was there not a committee~of the vestry which made 
a report in reference to the case of Mr. Jones on the 5th Sep- 
tember, 1811 ? 

13. At the time of the appointment of that committee, 
had it any instructions on the business of Mr. Jones ? Ex- 
plain, if you please, the nature of that committee ? 

To the twelfth and thirteenth interrogatories saith, that 
-there had been some time before a committee appointed on 
the state of the church; whether it was that committee 
which reported on the 5th September, 1811, or one particu- 
larly appointed on the business of Mr. Jones, he cannot po- 
sitively delare ; but that he is rather of the opinion it was a 
particular committee ; that he cannot state particularly the 
instructions given to the committee, but thinks they were to 
investigate and report what, in their opinion, was best to be 
done in Mr. Jones's case. 

14. At the lime of the adoption of the resolution in May 
1811, commencing this business, what did you understand 
as to the expectation or intention of the members of the 
vestry generally, respecting the taking of any further mea- 
sures ? 

To the fourteenth interrogatory saith, that it is impossible 
for him to speak positively on the subject of this interrogato- 
ry, but that he thinks it was expected by many, that a com- 
promise would take place. 



m 

15. AfW the vestry had made an application to bishop 
Moore for the removal of Mr. Jones, and before the meeting 
Of presbyters on the 5th of November 1811 ; were not you 
invited by bishop Moore to attend a private meeting of some 
of the presbyters ? Did you attend such meeting ; and what 
was its purpose ? Relate, if you please, the time and place 
of that meeting ; also the time of the day ; what presbyters 
were present; and the several circumstances attending: — 
particularly the sentiments which you delivered on that oc- 
casion. 

16. Was not that a special meeting called for that occa 
sion ? At what period of the proceedings of the said meeting 
were you sent for ? 

1 7. Was not bishop Moore at that period rector of Trini- 
ty Church ? 

To the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth interrogatories 
he saith, that he is not certain as to the day, but it was not 
long before the meeting of the presbyters on the 5th Novem- 
ber, 1811, that the Rev. Mr. Prentice came to him in haste 
from bishop Moore to request his immediate attendance at 
Mr. Moore's in Robinson-street ; that he instantly obeyed 
the summons, it was about one or two o'clock P. M. there 
were present Rev. Mr. How, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Lyell, and 
several other clergymen. The bishop then stated to the de- 
ponent, that he bad called a meeting of the presbyters in 
consequence of the disturbances which had lately arisen in 
the church, and should have given the deponent earlier no- 
tice, had he known he was in town; that they had already 
determined the business for which the meeting was called, by 
advising Mr. Jones to resign, and that the vestry of Trinity 
Church should give him one thousand pounds; and applied to 
the deponent for his opinion on the subject. That the depo- 
nent's answer was to this effect; in the present situation o£ 
the church, that he thought Mr. Jones's resignation, might 
be the means of restoring peace to it, and to himself, and that 
therefore, he thought it a prudent measure ; but that he could 
wish his resignation might take place without wounding life 
feelings, or injuring his reputation ; and therefore proposed to 
the bishop, to send for Mr. Jones, not in his official charac- 
ter, but as an affectionate friend, and advise him to resign, 
without holding up the idea of coercion, or saying any thing 
relative to the canons, giving him assurances, which he had 
reason to think might be done with safety, that the vestry 
would prevent his resignation being of any pecuniary disad- 
vantage to him ; and thus, by his friendly interposition, to 
^ffeofc a resignation to the satisfaction of all parties. The hi- 



56$ 

shop said he would do so — but the deponent has never heard 
that the measure was adopted. Bishop Moore was then rec- 
tor of Trinity Church. 

18. Was Mr. How, one of the attending presbyters, a 
party concerned in the controversy ? If he was a party, in 
what degree, and how did he become so ? 

19. Were not several of the other presbyters present, 
committed on the subject, by giving certificates or otherwise ? 
Will you please to mention those whom you have reason to 
consider so committed ? 

To the eighteenth and nineteenth interrogatories saith. 
that he cannot state who were the parties to the controversy; 
that several of the presbyters, he thinks, gave certificates on 
the subject. 

20. Were any, and which, of the attending presbyters, 
dependents on Trinity Church ? Will you mention those 
whom you know to be so dependeut ; the extent of the aid 
they derived from Trinity Church ; and the means of your 
knowledge thereof? 

To the twentieth interrogatory, saith, that he doth not per- 
ceive clearly, what is here intended or meant by dependents 
on Trinity Church ; all he can say is, that the most of the 
clergy in the diocese, have occasionally received donations 
from the corporation of Trinity Church. 

21. Was any, and what annuity, afterwards voted to the 
rev. Jonathan Judd ? If yea; when, and on what grounds ? 

To the twenty-first interrogator}', saith, that some time af- 
ter the meeting of the presbyters, stated in the 15th interrog- 
atory, there was granted to the rev. Mr. Judd, a gratuity of 
one hundred pounds, on the same grounds, he presumes, as 
gratuities had been granted to other clergymen. 

22. Was not the rev. Mr. Haskili an applicant to the ves- 
try of Trinty Church for assistance, at the same time with 
Mr. Judd ? Was any grant made to him ? 

To the twenty-second interrogatory, saith, that Mr. Hask- 
ili was an applicant to Trinity Church for assistance, about 
the same time with Mr. Judd, but did not then succeed; it 
being suggested that his parishioners were rich, and conse- 
quently that he was not so much in need of assistance, as 
some others. That the vestry afterwards voted a sum, not 
exceeding five hundred dollars, to he applied in repairing Mr. 
Haskil's glebe, on condition that his congregation would 
vote an equal sum for the same objects' 

23. Did not Dr. Harris protest against the proceedings at 
the above mentioned meeting of presbyters ? And did not the 



560 

vestry of Trinity Church, a short time after, discontinue an 
annuity which had been previously granted ? 

To the twenty-third interrogatory, saith, that he does not 
recollect that Dr. Harris was present at the meeting alluded 
to; nor does he know that Dr. Harris ever protested against 
that meeting, though he did against the meeting of the 5th of 
November following. To the other part of the interrogatory s 
lie answers in the affirmative. 

24. In making appropriations in aid of the support of the 
clergy of other congregations, what is the general mode pur- 
sued by the vestry of Trinity Church ? 

To the twenty-fourth interrogatory, saith, that he knows o£ 
$10 other mode, than granting gratuities when necessary. 

25. Whom have you always considered as the true parties 
to the controversy which for some time has existed in the 
church ? 

To the twenty-fifth interrogatory, saith, as before, that he 
cannot state the parties to the controversy, but presumes all 
who were concerned in it, on either side, are to be consider 
ed in that light. 

26j. On what ground was it that Mr. Jones declared to 
you his determination to publish his " Solemn Appeal ?" 

To the twenty-sixth interrogatory, saith, that when he 
mentioned to Mr. Jones the impropriety of publishing hi» 
*' Appeal," and endeavoured to dissuade him from it, he de- 
clared that his motive in doing it was, to state to the mem- 
bers of the church, some circumstances respecting Dr. He- 
bart, with which he deemed it necessary they should be ac- 
quainted, and which rendered him, in his opinion, an im- 
proper person to fill the office of bishop, for which office he 
was a candidate. As a farther reason for making the publi- 
cation at that particular time, he observed, that if Dr. Ho 
bart should succeed in his election, he, Mr. Jones, would 
be forever barred from terminating on equal terms the contro- 
versy which had for years subsisted between them. 

27. Is not the account contained in the h Solemn Ap- 
peal," from page 79 to page 83 inclusive, relating to the treat- 
ment received by you from Dr. Hobart and Mr. How, in sab= 
stance and circumstances correct ? 

To the twenty-seventh interrogatory, saith, that as to that 
part of the acount which relates to Dr. Hobart, he is under 
the painful necessity of answering in the affirmative — that the 
part which relates to Mr. How, is not so correct. 

28. Will you please to furnish your own relation of the 
conduct of Dr. Hobart and Mr. How, with relation to the 
subject now under consideration: pariicularly 5 what passed 

*a3 



ir70 

at one interview at the College with Dr. Hobart; at o»€ 
other, when he applied for a certificate concerning Mr. Jones ; 
and at three others, when he urged an exculpation on these 
points? All the attending circumstances are desired, as far 
as can be recollected. 

29. Did not you, on the evening previous to the election 
of Dr. Hobart in May 1811, propose to the clergy on both 
sides of the controversy, that a meeting should take place at 
your house, in order to reconcile differences, before they 
should enter upon that solemn duty? Did not Mr. Jones and. 
his friends attend ? Did Mr. how, or Dr. Hobart, or any 
one authorized to act in their name ? 

To the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth interrogatories, saitb , 
that he cannot properly answer these interrogatories, without 
mentioning many circumstances, which he could wish for- 
ever to blot from his memory, but that on this solemn occasion 
it is his duty to be explicit, however distressing to his feelings. 
On his (the deponents return from the country in March 
1811,) whither he had been for a few days, the deponent found 
that a special convention had been called in his absence, for 
the express purpose of electing an assistant bishop, a circum- 
stance which could not fail of being interesting to every 
member of the church, and especially to those who minister 
at the altar. The deponent therefore wished to embrace the 
opportunity, which was presented by Doctor Hobart's call- 
ing upon him in the morning after the deponent's return, to 
converse with the Doctor on the subject; that, by knowing 
what his wishes were, the deponent might be better enabled 
to render Dr. Hobart every friendly office in the deponent's 
power. The deponent had no sooner mentioned the subject 
to Dr. Hobart, than to the deponent's utter astonishment, his 
feelings were wounded by these expressions, uttered not " is 
a manner not more respectful and tender, than justice and 
truth and honour demanded," but with great asperity and 
every appearance of irritation ; " I will not talk with you on 
this subject^ — I will say nothing to you about it.'''' Grieved to 
the heart to receive such language, accompanied too, by a 
manner so different from any thing the deponent had been ac- 
customed to think decent and becoming, as soon as he could 
recollect himself, after so unexpected and heart-rending a re- 
pulse, he attempted by the most soothing expressions, to know 
the cause of his irritation, but the attempt was fruitless, and 
at parting, such was the state of the deponent's feelings to- 
wards Dr. Hobart, that he could not refrain from expressing 
what his heart dictated, notwithstanding the marked indigni- 
ty with which Dr. Hobart had spurned the deponent from 
hina-' and this expression was, that God would bless him' 



571 

'M this circumstance is mentioned in Df. Hobart's pamphlet. 
ft is here alluded to, in order to explain the frame of mind in 
which the expression was uttered. Soon after this confer- 
^nce, Dr. Hobart again called on the deponent, and in acorn*- 
mantling tone, demanded a certificate in writing, that his con- 
duct towards Mr. Jones had always been friendly and concil- 
iating, as far as it had come to the knowledge of the depo- 
nent. In reply, the deponent informed him, that he could 
certainly testify as to that point, but that in justice to Mr. 
Jones, he should be obliged to testify, that Mr. Jones's con- 
duct had always been equally friendly to Dr. Hobart. The 
deponent remarked likewise, that he deemed it improper to 
give any certificate at present, to either of the gentlemen, as 
he had on the same day, by the earnest desire of a respecta- 
ble member of the church, who was friendly to both, been 
endeavouring to effect a reconciliation between them. These 
reasons, however, availed nothing; and he persisted in his 
demand of a certificate from the deponent, as an act of jus- 
tice which he could not refuse. As the deponent did not 
recollect a single instance during the whole term of their ac- 
quaintance, in which he had declined a compliance with any 
request of Dr. Hobart, he found it difficult to give him a pe- 
remptory refusal, notwithstanding the harsh and unfriendly 
treatment he had just received, and therefore mildly proposed 
to take a little time for the consideration of a matter, which 
appeared to him of considerable importance. In this manner 
they parted the second time. 

In the afternoon of the same day, the deponent happened 
to be at Dr. Bowden's rooms in the College, when Dr. Ho= 
bart came in, and was scarcely seated, before he importuned 
the deponent for the certificate, which he had requested. The 
deponent replied, in as cool and conciliating a manner, as he 
was capable, that the more he reflected upon the subject, the 
more he was convinced of the impropriety of giving any cer- 
tificate at this time, either to Dr. Hobart, or to Mr. Jones; 
as it would undoubtedly subject the deponent to the imputa- 
tion of being a partizan, rather than a conciliatory friend to 
both. Instead of being satisfied with the reasons for declin- 
ing his request, Dr. Hobart discovered considerable irritation, 
though in the presence of Dr. Bowden and family. On his 
retiring, as he soon did, the deponent followed him to the 
front door, in order to sooth him if possible, and reconcile 
Mm to the line of conduct which the deponent wished to pur- 
sue. He no sooner perceived the deponent at the door, than 
in increased agitation, he' accosted the deponent in these 
words, " If you will not do me justice, I will do myself jus= 
fci&e— -and I will publish to the world, what you have said of 



572- 

~\Ir. Jones, and that you will say one thing to day and aito 
ther to-morrow, and I will prove it sir, I will prove it." The 
only answer which the deponent made to Mm was, " you are- 
at liberty to do as you please, sir, but be assured, I shall 
never answer any of your publications." He left the depo- 
nent with great precipitation, and with deep impressions of 
regret on the deponent's mind, Several days then passed, 
perhaps a week or fortnight, before the deponent heard any 
thing further of Dr. Hobart. At length the deponent receiv- 
ed a message from Dr. Hobart, requesting an interview, in 
order to an accommodation. With this proposal the deponent 
felt much gratified, and with pleasing expectation looked 
forward to a renewal of the friendship between him and Dr* 
Hobart. A time wag appointed for a meeting, and it took 
place soon after, in the presence of two of their friends. It 
is difficult to describe the astonishment which the deponent 
felt, when instead of an apology for his conduct, as it was 
natural to expect, Dr. Hobart laboured incessantly through 
the whole evening, to draw from the deponent, something 
that might have the appearance of a declaration that the de- 
ponent misunderstood Dr. Hobart, and that it was not his 
intention to insult the depouent. The deponent's answer 
was decidedly and uniformly to^this effect: — " Dr. Hobart, 
your language was so plain, your manner so impressive, and 
bo abrupt was your angry departure from me, that it was not 
possible that 1 should have misunderstood you; and with re- 
spect to j^our motive, of that you only can be the proper 
judge. However distressing to the bosom of friendship your 
conduct has been to me, I sincerely wish for my own peace, 
and for the peace of the church which we serve, it may from 
•his moment be buried in eternal oblivon; nor will 1 even 
ask from you an apology." Dr. HGbart still persisted in his 
endeavours to extort from the deponent some expression or 
other, that might appear to soften his f Dr. Hobart's) conduct, 
but still without success. Unwilling, however, to relinquish 
all hope of reconciliation, the two friends who attended on 
the occasion, proposed to adjourn for the present, and to 
meet again with another friend in whom thej^ both had con- 
fidence. This was agreed to. The second meeting took 
place, and the third friend attended. The deponent repeated 
his proposals for a reconciliation. Dr. Hobart insisted with 
the same determined resolution as at the last meeting, that 
the. deponent should some way or other give a more favoura* 
ble colouring to the transaction. Not succeeding in his at- 
tempt, he refused to comply with the deponent's proposals, 
and precipitately left the room. In a day or two afterwards, 
jrie informed the deponent by a friend of the deponent's, thc.t 



57-3 

lie was now ready to comply with the deponents proposal, 
and it' agreeable, would call upon the deponent for that pur- 
pose. Dr. Hobart's request Avas readily granted — he came, 
and it was agreed to say no more upon the subject. 

Soon after this transaction, the day arrived on which the 
election of an assistant bishop was to take place. Thongft 
the deponent had once thought, and as he believes, had siren* 
tioned to some of his friends, that Dr. Hobart would be a 
proper person to nil that ofiice, yet his late behaviour had 
convinced the deponent that he had judged too hastily. The 
deponent could indeed, and did readily agree, to pass over 
Dr. Hobart's late conduct towards him, even without an apo- 
logy, so far as it respected a friendly intercourse with hini in 
future. Yet the deponent found it impossible to give his 
sanction to an election of one, who appeared to discover such 
a want of christian meekness and humility as pertinaciously 
to persist in justifying, what was deemed by the deijonent 
the most unjustifiable conduct, and in disclaiming the idea of 
his being like other mortals, liable to error. Such a temper was 
deemed by the deponent unsuitable to the character of a chris- 
tian bishop ; and therefore when no one but Dr. Hobart could 
be found, who would permit himself to be held up as a can- 
didate for that office, the deponent wished this difficulty might 
be removed, and for some time cherished the hope, that on 
cool reflection Dr. Hobart would see the impropriety of his 
conduct, and have the magnanimity to confess it, which wa& 
all that the deponent required. The day preceding the elec- 
tion however arrived, and the deponent's hopes were not real-^ 
ised. Unwilling even then to relinquish an object which he 
deemed of so much importance as unanimity in the choice of 
a bishop, the deponent ventured to mention to Dr. Hobart his 
ieclings and wishes upon that subject; whereupon Dr. Hobart 
frankly expressed his regret for what had passed, and gave to 
the deponent such satisfaction as a christian ought to accept, 
on which, the deponent determined to give him his vote. 
One obstacle still remained. Several of the clergy were so 
averse to the election of Dr. Hobart, as to excite unpleasant 
apprehensions respecting ihe peace of the church if he should 
be elected*, In this critical situation, and to secure, if pos? 
aible, harmony among the clergy, a conference was had 
of as many of them as could be convened, tode?k some 
method to avert the impending evil. At this meting DiY 
Hobart and MrrHow did not attend. It was unav : :<s!y 
resolved by those present to bury in oblivion all dispute mi 
mosities, and contentions which subsisted between any indi- 
viduals, and to unite one and all in the present candidate, 
Thus, a fair prospect was opened for the restoration of Jiarnio- 



iiy; no doubi remaining but that Dr. Hobart and those who 
were solicitous for his election, would cheerfully acquiesce in 
the plan proposed. These fair prospects, however, were un- 
fortunately blasted by a refusal on the part of Dr. Hobart 
and his particular friends, to accede to the plan, unless Mr. 
How was excepted from the general amnesty. After the 
election had taken place, though not with the unanimity con- 
templated, the deponent endeavoured, by paying to the new= 
!y elected bishop the respect due to his office, and by every 
friendly attention in the deponent's power, to preserve the 
peace of the church. For a few weeks every thing seemed 
to wear a favourable aspect. But about this time a circum- 
stance occurred which disappointed the pleasing expectation, 
which the deponent had formed of future harmony between 
him and Dr. Hobart. The Board of Trustees of Columbia 
College, of which the deponent and Dr. Hobart were both 
members, were about electing a president for that institution, 
and Dr. Hobart mentioned to the deponent his wish that Mr. 
How might have the appointment. It was the deponent's 
misfortune to disagree with Dr. Hobart in opinion; and as he 
supposed that Dr. Harris would be a more proper person to 
fill the office, he frankly told Dr. Hobart so. Only in om 
instance before had he received from the deponent any oppo- 
sition to his wishes. On finding the deponent to hesitate on 
the present occasion, he appeared a little irritated, and in a 
tone rather commanding, said, Mr. How will be nominated 
and will have a number of votes; and that he (Dr. Hobart) 
would move at the board that the election should be viva voct , 
intimating, as the deponent supposes, that the deponent 
would not dare to oppose him. The deponent's answer was 
to this effect — Mr. Harris will likewise be nominated, and 
will have a number of votes, I perfectly agree with you, 
that instead of balloting, the mode you mention will be the 
most eligible. The election terminated unanimously in fa- 
vour of Mr. Harris. Dr. Hobart since has published his panir 
phlet, which he calls his vindication ; and in which he en- 
deavours to asperse the character of the deponent. From 
the time of that publication, no friendly intercourse has sub- 
sisted between Dr. Hobart and the deponent. 

30. In the pamphlet entitled, " A Letter to the Vestry of 
Trinity Church," published by Dr. Hobart as an answer to 
the " Solemn Appeal" are contained extracts of a letter from 
you, in answer to certain questions proposed. — Is the whole 
of that letter published ? If not, produce if you please, th* 
part suppressed. 



To the thirtieth interrogatory, saith, that upon a Compart 
son of copies of his two letters of the 8th ami 13th of July, 
1811, with the extracts of them published in Dr. Hobart's 
pamphlet, it appears that the doctor has omitted to publish 
the following paragraph contained in the first letter, viz. 

" Third question. In a conversation with you a short time 
previously to the late special convention, did you not 
istate to me, that you had an interview with Mr. Jones, and 
that he had expressed to you a disposition to a reconciliation 
with me, but that there were certain conditions; one that he 
should be replaced in the standing committee, and the other 
that I should not coasent to be bishop ?" 

" Answer. In the conversation had with Mr. Jones, at 
the request of a most respectable member of our church, with 
a view to a reconcilement of the differences which unhap- 
pily subsisted between you and him, the conditions to which 
you allude, were mentioned by him ; but I afterwards under- 
stood, that previously to the publication of his pamphlet, he 
proposed to refer all matters of disagreement subsisting between 
you, to the decision of three lay gentlemen, without insist- 
ing uponany conditions, and to abide by their decision, what- 
ever it might be." 

It appears also, that he has omitted to publish the following 
paragraph, contained in the second letter of the 13th of July, 
viz. 

" I am grieved to the heart to he under the necessity of 
saying any thing on a subject so distressing to my feelings as 
the one before us, and were it in my power, every thing that 
relates to it, instead of being published to the world, should 
be buried in eternal oblivion." 

31. Did not the rev. Ellas Cooper, one of the attending 
presbyters on the 5th of Nov. 1811, express in your presence 
since that period, regret at the part which he then acted ? — 
State, if you please, what he said, and the reasons assigned. 

32. Is it not a fact, that some respectable communicants 
of the church, refused to receive the communion from the 
hands of Dr. Hobart a>nd Mr. How, and to meet with them 
at the altar ?- — If yea, state the grounds cf such refusal. 

33. What is the fact with regard to the relative attend- 
ance of the communicants at the altar, since the discontinu- 
ance of the ministry of Mr. Jones, and prior to your removal ; 
that is, were they more or fewer in number than before that 
period ? 

34. When you officiated at either of the churches respective- 
ly, in conjunction with Dr. Hobart, Mr. How, or Mr. Jones, 
what was your observation with regard to the relative attend- 
ance? that is, did individuals withdraw themselves only 



h76 

when -Mr. Jones officiated ; or was the same practised on 
the days of the officiating of the two former clergymen ; and 
what, as it appeared to you, were the relative numbers ? 

To the thirty-first, thirty-second, thirty-third and thirty- 
fofrrth interrogatories, saith, in answer to those four interro- 
gatories, that the rev. Elias Cooper, since November 1811, 
has had some conversation with the deponent on the subject 
alluded to, and may have expressed some regret, but the de- 
ponent cannot now recollect what passed, so as to state it with 
any degree of accuracy* That he has reason to believe that 
some of the parishioners stayed away, or declined the com- 
munion when to be administered by Dr. Hobart and Mr. How, 
and that others did the same under Mr. Jones's administration 
of it; but that he cannot at this day, determine or state their 
relative numbers ; that he is of opinion there are not so many 
communicants since the dispute began as there were before, 

35. Do you know of any other matter or thing useful for 
the said Cave Jones, in relation to the matters before named, 
besides what you have been particularly interrogated unto ? 
If yea, set forth the same as fully and at large, as if you 
were thereunto particularly interrogated, with the grounds 
and reasons of your knowledge and belief respecting such 
matters. 

To the thirty-fifth, he saith, that he doth not recollect or 
know of any thing further, material, to be set down in an- 
swer to the aforesaid interrogatories. 

N. B. The said Abraham Beach offering himself for fur- 
ther examination on the subject of his answer above stated to 
the thirtieth interrogatory, saith, that when he was under ex- 
amination upon that interrogatory, he could not find in Dr. 
Hobart's pamphlet the third question and the answer to it ; 
and that he could not then recollect whether he had ever seen 
it there ; but that having made more diligent search since, 
he finds the third question and answer are contained in the 
pamphlet, and therefore desires to correct so much of his an- 
swer to the thirtieth interrogatory, 

ABRAHAM BEACH. 

Taken and sworn to this 23d July, 1813, before me, 

ROBERT BOGGS. 

The answer of the said Abraham Beach, D. D. to the 
cross-interrogatories put in the aforesaid case. 

1. Who has exercised the powers of diocesan bishop in 
the state of New- York since the year 1801. 

To the first interrogatory, the said Abraham Beach an- 
swereth and saith . that Dr. Moore has cxeFcised the powers 



B77 

of diocesan bishop in the state of New-York since the yeai* 
1801. 

2. When the publication of Mr. Jones came under the 
consideration of the vestry, did you not consider it as an of 5 
fence against the church, and as giving to it just cause of dis- 
satisfaction. 

To the second interrogatory he saith, that he did consid? 
er the publication of Mr. Jones as an imprudent thing s and 
as giving cause of dissatisfaction. 

3. Be pleased to mention all the objects of the appoint- 
ment of the committee referred to in the sixteenth direct in-? 
terrogatory, as expressed in the resolution under which that 
committee was appointed. 

To the third saith, that as there is no committee mentioned 
in the 16th direct interrogatory, he can give no answer to 
this 3d interrogatory. 

4. State the names of all the persons present at the first 
meeting of presbyters referred to in the seventeenth interroga- 
tory, and declare also whether you did not express yourself to 
be satisfied with their proceedings and with the determination 
which they then came to. 

To the fourth, saith, that lie refers to his answer already 
given to the 15th and 16th interrogatories. 

5. In your answer to the twenty-first, twenty-second and 
twenty-third direct interrogatories or either of them, do you 
mean to be understood as asserting or insinuating {hat an an- 
nuity or other allowance was granted to Mr. Judd on account 
of the part he took in the controversy between the vestry 
and Mr. Jones. 

To the fifth, saith, that in his answers to the 21st, 22d 
and 23d, direct interrogatories, does not mean to assert or 
insinuate, that the annuity or allowances there spoken oi\ 
was either given or withheld on account of the part taken in 
the controversy. 

6. Do you recollect whether specific grounds were not 
assigned in the vestry for withholding further aid from Mr. 
Haskill and Mr. Harris ? State these grounds and declare 
whether the vestry did not act on them. 

To the sixth, saith, that he hath already answered this in- 
terrogatory, in regard to Mr. Haskill, in his answer to the 
23d direct interrogatory : with regard to Mr. Harris, it was 
stated in the vestry, as a reason for withholding further aid 
to him, that he was then in the receipt of the same sunj as 
president of Columbia College. 

7. Do you know of any instance whatever in which the 
part taken by any of the clers;v in the affair of Mr. Jones 

b b3 



67H 

ki& been urged, or lias operated for or against the granting %& 
assistance to them ? 

To the seventh, saith, that he doth not know of any such 
circumstance as is alluded to in this interrogatory. 

8. Was not Dr. Hobart, previously to the spring of 1811, 
on terms of the most intimate and most friendly intercourse 
with you ? 

To the eigth, saith, that his answer is in the affirmative. 

9. Previously to the fall of the year 1808, when Dr. Ho- 
bart discovered Mr. Jones's hostile designs against him, did 
you ever hear Dr. Hobart express himself in unfriendly terms 
of Mr. Jones? But on the contrary, have you not heard Dr 
Hobart defend Mr. Jones from unfavourable remarks ? 

To the ninth, saith, that previous to the year 1808, he 
does not remember, that he ever heard Dr. Hobart expres? 
himself in unfriendly terms of Mr. Jones; and that he has 
heard Dr. Hobart defend Mr. Jones from unfavourable re- 
marks. 

10. Had you not very little intercourse with Mr. Jones 
except so far as official duty was concerned prior to the 
spring of 1811 ? 

To the tenth, saith, that he had no particular intimacy with 
Mr. Jones prior to the year 181 fc, but there had been consid- 
erable intercourse and exchange of civilities, and they had 
lodged at each others houses ; the intimacy before and since, 
has been pretty much the same, 

11. Did you not conceive that in some case Mr. Jones 
did not act in as friendly a manner as you wished toward? 
you ; and in all these cases, as far as you recollect, did not 
Dr. Hobart, when they were mentioned to him, palliate the 
conduct of Mr. Jones ? 

To the eleventh, saith, that if any such cause ever occur 
red, of an unfriendly manner towards him on the part of Mr 
Jones, they must have been of a trivial nature ; and that he 
hath no traces of them now, which enables him to state any 
thing with precision. 

12. At the convention in the fall of the year 1808, did 
uot Dr. Hobart state to you his regret at the discovery of Mr. 
Jones's hostile sentiments towards him and express to you his 
intention, with a view of soothing Mr. Jones and preserving 
peace, of declining a re-election to the offices which he (Dr 
Hobart) then held in the church? And did you not dissuade 
him from declining? 

To the twelfth, saith, that he refers for an answer to this 
interrogatory, to his answer to the 1st question in his letter 
to Dr. Hobart, of 8th July 1811, as published in Dr. Hobarfs 
pamphlet. 



B79 

13. In the publication of the rev. Mr. Jones, entitled a 
Solemn Appeal to the Church, page 30, it is stated, that at 
a meeting of the standing committee, in March 1810, " Dr. 
Beach took an early opportunity, which appeared to be by 
design and pre-arrangement, to introduce a conversation con* 
cerning the rev. Dr. R. C. Moore. The irregularity of his 
proceeding in the holding of his private societies was descant- 
ed on, and an intimation was thrown out by Dr. Beach, 
whether it was not proper that he should be left to himself, 
and that we should have nothing to do with him. To this., 
Dr. Hobart made answer, that in that respect it appeared to 
him, every one ought to be left to his own discretion." Re- 
ferring to this statement you will be pleased to mention 
what recollection you have of the facts there alleged? 

14. Have you not uniformly disapproved of those private 
societies which Dr. Moore was in the habit of holding? 

To the thirteenth and fourteenth, saith, that at the meet- 
ing of the standing committee alluded to in the 13th inter- 
rogatory, he recollects that such a conversation as therein is 
stated was held, but that it did not arise from design or 
'kny pre-arrangement; that he has generally disapproved 
of the private societies R. C. Moore was in the habit of hold- 
ing. 

15. After the illness of bishop Moore, was you not assu# 
ed by Dr. Hobart, and by others from him, that he consider- 
ed the rectory of Trinity Church as your diocesand; that no 
others had any pretensions to it? Did you not at one period 
after the event above alluded to, disclaim all idea of the epis- 
copate; and did not a change in your sentiments on this sub- 
ject take place alter you left the city on a visit to your farm 
in the country? In particular, did you not on the day after 
your return to the city, state to Mr. Lyell and Dr. How, 
(hat if elected to the episcopate, you would serve in that of- 
fice ? 

To the fifteenth, he saith, that an observation did come 
from Dr. Hobart, respecting the rectorship, as stated in the 
first part of this interrogatory. That he had generally dis- 
claimed the episcopate, but afterwards, on his return from the 
country, he was prevailed upon, under an idea that it might 
heal the disturbances in the church, to say, that if elected, 
he would serve; that he continued in this mind but for a day 
or two, when on further reflection, he adhered to his former 
determination, and declined the appointment, which was im- 
mediately made known. 

16. Did you not see Mr. Jones on the Monday following 
your return to the city, and Dr. Moore and Mr. Karris on the 
issuing Thursday ; and did you not directly or indirectly 



S'SO 

vtivc them io understand, that if elected to the episcopate, 
you would accept the office; and was not this the first con- 
versation directly or indirectly which you had with them on 
the subject ? 

To the Sixteenth, saith^ that he recollects mentioning to 
the gentlemen named in this interrogatory, that he would ac- 
cept the episcopate it' elected, but that he very soon after, as 
before stated, declined it. That he cannot be precise as to 
the days, nor whether that was the first conversation on the 
subject. 

1 7i Did you not state to two members of the vestry, Mr. 
Harison and Mr. King, or one of them, that you had enter- 
tained no thoughts of serving in the office of bishop, until this 
measure was represented to you by Mr. Jones, Dr. Moore, 
Mr. Harris, or some or one of them, as essential to the peace 
of. the church ? 

To the seventeenth, saith, that he did mention to Mr. King 
£nd others, that he had not thought of serving in the office of 
bishop, until he was persuaded to it, as a measure essential to 
the peace of the church, as is stated in answer to the fifteenth 
eross-interregstory. 

18. Did you not state to the rev. Mr; Barry in the vestry 
room of St. John's, or in your going to, or returning from that 
church, that the calling of the special convention for the 
purpose of electing a bishop Was the result of intrigue; and 
'bat Mr. Harison had induced the bishop to call that conven- 
tion ? 

To the eighteenth, saith, that he has no recollection of the 
conversation with the rev. Mr. Barry, alluded to in this in- 
terrogatory. 

19. Did you not state to Dr. Hobart, that in an interview 
you had on the Monday morning after your return from the 
country with the rev. Mr. Jones, that he (Mr. Jones,) had 
mentioned, as conditions of reconciliation, that he should be 
restored to the standing committee, and that Dr. Hobart 
Should resign his pretensions to the episcopate, or words to 
that effect ? And did you not, at the same time, promise Dr. 
Hobart that you would furnish him with a statement of your 
knowledge of his conduct relative to the rev. Mr. Jones ? 

To the nineteenth, saith, that he can give no other answer 
to the first part of this interrogatory ^ than is contained in 
his answer to Dr. Hobarfs third question, as stated in his 
answer to the 30th direct interrogatory ; and that he did not 
• hen promise Dr. Hobart to furnish him with any statement 
fespfectiBg his conduct in relation to Mr. Jones. 



581 
20. Did not Dr. Hobart state as a reason for declinin 



conversation with you on the subjects of the rectory and 
episcopate, a desire to prevent the imputation that you and 
Dr. Hobart were dividing the offices of the church between 
you? 

To the twentieth, saith^ that in some one of their last con- 
versations, Dr. Hobart did state to deponent, as a reason 
?.gainst his talking with him about the rectorship and episco- 
pate, that it might be said, they were dividing the offices of 
the church between them. 

21. At the close of the interview with Dr. Hobart, did 
he not declare to you his confidence in your friendly inten* 
lions towards him ; ahd did you not take him by the hand and 
give him your blessing ? 

22. In the afternoon of the day in which this interview 
took place, did you not refuse to give Dr. Hobart the state- 
ment relative to his conduct towards Mr. Jones, which you 
had promised to give him in the morning ? And did you not 
allege as a reason for this refusal, that he and Dr. How 
would employ this statement to your disadvantage? 

23. Was it not after this refusal that Dr. Hobart told you 
that if you would not voluntarily do him justice, he should 
be obliged, in self-defence, to have recourse to compulsory 
measures ? 

24. Did you not after this conversation, state to several 
of the clergy, and among the rest to Mr. Jones, or to Dr-. 
Moore, or to Dr. Harris, and to several of the members of 
the vestry, that Dr. Hobart had insulted you? Were not 
these representations made during Dr. Hobart's absence in 
the country? After his return had he not two interviews 
with you at his request, with a view to an explanation ? And 
did he not then press you to make a declaration that you had 
misunderstood his (Dr. Hobart's) intentions towards you ? 
Was not a form of a declaration to this effect proposed by Mr* 
Lawrence, your son-in-law, who was present, and accepted 
as satisfactory by Dr. Hobart, and was it not declined by 

you? 

25. After all attempts to procure a satisfactory explanation 
from you failed, did not Dr. Hobart wait on you, and was 
there not at his instance a mutual agreement to bury in oblivion 
all that was past ? Did you not afterwards complain to the rev* 
Mr. Nash, and in presence of the rev. Mr. Prentice, who had 
both come down to attend the special convention of Dr. Ho- 
bart's treatment of you? Did you not declare to them that 
you would not sign Dr. Hobart's testimonials for the office of 
bishop? Had not Mr. King some conversation with you on 



j82 

ihe subject of signing this testimonial, and did you not final- 
ly sign it ? 

To the twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty -third, twenty- 
fourth, and twenty-fifth interrogatories, saith, that generally, 
for an answer to these five interrogatories, the deponent re- 
fers to his ansAver given to the 28th and 29th direct interrog- 
atories. And the deponent further saith, that he doth not 
recollect, but that he may, at the time, have expressed an 
apprehension that Dr. Hobart would employ the statement 
asked, to the deponent's disadvantage — that Dr. Hobart went 
out of town directly after the conversation alluded to, and re- 
mained there for near a fortnight ; and the deponent, during 
this period, upon being inquired of, did state to several of his 
acquaintance, and probably to Dr. Moore and others of the 
clergy, the manner in which he conceived Dr. Hobart had 
insulted him. That no form of a declaration was agreed up- 
on, but that Mr. Lawrence proposed, verbally, something, 
which was not agreed to. That he did not complain to Mr* 
Nash, in the presence of Mr. Prentice, of Dr. Hobart'3 treat- 
ment of him ; but he did mention in their presence that 
though he had agreed to pass Over and forgive the treatment 
he had received, as an individual, yet that the Doctor's un- 
willingness to acknowledge his error, was an obstacle with 
the deponent to the signing the testimonial in his favour as 
bishop ; that Mr. King had some conversation with the depo- 
nent on this subject; and the deponent did finally sign the 
-:esiimonial. 

26. After the ballots on the election of assistant bishop 
were counted, did you not declare publicly in the convention, 
and to Dr. Hobart, that you had no intention of accepting 
the office of bishop, and reprove those, who had thus brought 
your name forward? 

To the twenty-sixth, saith, that when the ballots were 
counted after the election, and he found several had voted for 
nim, he did then express his disapprobation of it, as he had 
publicly desired that he might not be voted for, having deter- 
mined not to serve in the office 

27. At the interview between you and Mr. How, in 
which Mr. Jones says, (Solemn Appeal, page 81,) Mr. How 
;reated you ill — was not the subject of the approaching elec- 
lion of an assistant bishop in this diocese introduced by your- 
self? 

To the twenty-seventh, saith, that he doth not recollect 
.vhich introduced the subject, Mr. How or the deponent. 

23. Did not Mr. How expressly say to you, that if he 
> onversed with you on the subject, he must speak with the 
utmost candour ? And did he not express his confidence that 



fm would receive whatever he should say, in the spirit of res- 
pect in which it would be intended ? 

To the twenty-eighth, saith, that he answers in the affirm- 
ative. 

29. Mr. Jones asserts that Mr. How said, *' although, 
some of the clergy might vote for you, it would yet be out ot 
pity, and not out of respect." Did Mr. How use this lan- 
guage? Was not the address of Mr. How to this effect? 
' The convention, in my opinion, will not unite in any old 
man. It would be very disagreeable to you to come into the 
episcopal office after a strong opposition; it would be still 
more disagreeable to you to fail ; and if the convention should 
elect you, it will be, not because they will think the thing 
correct in itself, but because they will not be able to prevail 
upon themselves to wound your feelings." 

To the twenty-ninth, saith, that Mr. How's addres to him, 
was, in substance, as stated in this interrogatory, but deliver- 
ed in a style or manner extremely offensive to the deponent'? 
feelings. 

ABRAHAM BEACH, 

Taken and sworn to this 23d July, 
1813 : before me % 

ROBERT BOGGS. 



The answers of Isaac Lawrence, Esq. to the interrogatories 
^hibited to him, and hereto annexed, on the part of the rev. 
Cave Jones, in a certain arbitration depending between him 
and the rector and inhabitants of the city of New-York in 
communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state 
of New- York. 



1. Were not you present at two interviews between the 
rev. Dr. Beach and Dr. Hobart ? 

2. What was the object of the first, and by whom was it 
proposed? 

3. State, if you please, the particulars of that interview; 
and when it took place ? 

4. What led to the second interview, at which you were 
present? 

5. What took place at this last interview? Please to be 
as particular, with respect to the different circumstances in 
each case, as you can recollect ? 



5S4 

To the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth interrogatories, 
saith, that some time in April, 1811, the rev. Mr. Lyell cal- 
led on Dr. Beach at the request of Dr. Hobart, as he said, 
who wished, he said, to have an interview with Dr. Beach 
in the presence of Mr. Lyell, and this deponent ; that these 
four gentlemen met in the evening of the same day, when, 
instead of any apology from Dr. Hobart for the treatment 
complained of, and which was expected, he appeared to be 
much out of humour, that Dr. Beach had mentioned the 
treatment he had received from Dr. Hobart, and demanded 
that Dr. Beach should give him something, that would do 
away the unfavourable impressions made by Dr. Beach's re- 
port of that treatment. Dr. Beach told Dr. Hobart repeated- 
ly, that though he never had his feelings so severely wounded. 
as by the language used towards him by Dr. Hobart, still he 
felt so desirous for the peace of the church, that even with- 
out an apology, he would bury all in eternal oblivion ; but 
that Dr. Hobart would not consent to those terms, and in- 
sisted that Dr. Beach should say, that he might have misun- 
derstood Dr. Hobart. Dr. Beach said in reply, that it was 
impossible he could have been mistaken, as the words used 
by Dr. Hobart had made too deep an impression. Dr. Ho- 
bart still insisted as before, with much zeal, but to no pur- 
pose; and thus the interview terminated. At the second 
meeting, on the evening following, when Dr. Bowden attend- 
ed, nearly the same conversation took place. Dr. Beach 
showed every disposition for peace; but Dr. Hobart persisted 
as on the preceding evening. Dr. Hobart then, in an ab- 
rupt and violent manner, declared, that he would tell his sto- 
ry, and that Dr. Beach might relate his; and then see who 
would be believed. Dr. Beach mildly replied, do as you 
please sir ; I shall take no trouble about it. A few days af- 
ter, Dr. Hobart called at the store of the deponent and said, 
he wished he had agreed to Dr. Beach's proposal; and if 
agreeable, would accede to it now. Accordingly the depo- 
nent informed Dr. Beach, who immediately accepted the 
proposal. Dr. Hobart afterwards called, and, in the presence 
of the deponent, agreed with Dr, Beach to bury all in obli- 
vion. 

6. Do you know of anjr intrigues on the part of Dr. Ho- 
bart and Mr. How, in order to get Mr. Berrian settled in 
Trinity Church, in some subordinate capacity, before an op- 
portunity presented for having him established as an assist- 
ant minister? State, if you please, the nature and particu- 
lars of those intrigues, and all the parties therein; and any 
other matters which come within your knowledge, relating 
to this subject ? 



585 

7. By what means was it that the intrigues spoken of 
foiled? 

8. Are you acquainted with any expressions used con- 
cerning bishop Moore in relation to this subject? State 
them, if you please, and by whom made ? 

To the sixth, seventh, and eighth interrogatories, the depo- 
nent saith, that some time in the summer of 1310, as the de- 
ponent believes, bishop Moore and Dr. Beach agreed to join 
in the employment of an assistant; and Mr. Berrian was pro- 
posed to them. Dr. Beach left town, telling bishop Moore 
to offer what sum he should think right, as a compensation 
to Mr. Berrian; and that he would pay half. Mr. Berrian 
declined the offer, the sum proposed being too small, as was 
understood. A few days afterwards, Dr. Hobart and Mr. 
How were at the deponent's door, and in speaking of the last 
mentioned business, seemed much displeased with the offer 
which bishop Moore had made to Mr. Berrian, especially as 
the bishop had received a large sum from the church, and 
was very weal thy 1 Mr. How then spoke of bishop Moore's 
extreme attachment to property, and concluded by saying, 
that he would pay proper respect to the office, but that he 
despised the man. Doctor Hobart then observed to the de- 
ponent, that bishop Moore and Dr. Beach ought each to have 
given a thousand dollars to Mr. Berrian, and that the vestry 
should give five hundred dollars in addition. The deponent 
observed, that in such case it would be placing Mr. Berrian 
in a better situation than Dr. Beach ; and they separated. 
The deponent understood about this time, that some attempts 
were making by Mr. How to have the gratuities of bishop 
Moore and Dr. Beach withheld. 

9. Has not the rev. Elias Cooper, one of the attending 
presbyters at the meeting on the 5th Nov. 1811, at any time, 
or at different times, expressed his regret to your family, for 
the part which he acted on that occasion ? Mention, if 
you please, the expressions used as far as you can recollect, 
together with the reasons assigned for such regret. 

To the ninth interrogatory, the deponent saith, that he 
«3oes not recollect hearing the rev* Mr. Cooper say any thing 
on the subject. 

10. Was not St. George's Church, of which you were a 
i^ember, in connexion with Trinity Church as a chapel, dur- 
ing the whole of the period when the matters concerning Mr 
Jones were transacted ? What was the relative attendance 
of the members of that congregation, at the times of the of- 
ficiating of Dr. Hobart, Mr. How, or Mr. Jones respec- 
tively : that is* did individuals absent themselves only when 
Mr. Jones officiated, or was the same practised when the 

c c 3 



other clergymen officiated respectively \ and what were the 
relative numbers ? 

11. During part of that period, was not St. George's shut 
up for the purpose of being cleaned ; and did not you then 
attend at Trinity Church? What was the relative state of 
that congregation, with regard to the particulars mentioned, 
and under the circumstances supposed in the last question, 
as far as your observation could extend ? 

To the tenth and eleventh interrogatories, he aaith, that 
he attended St. George's Church until it Was shut up to be 
cleaned, and observed some persons leaving it whenever Mr, 
Jones, Dr. Hobart, or Mr. How preached; and when the de- 
ponent attended at Trinity Church he observed the same. 

ISAAC LAWRENCE. 

Taken and sworn to this 23d July, 1313, before me, 

ROBERT BOGGS. 

The answer of the said Isaac Lawrence to cross-interrogato= 
ries in the aforesaid case. 

1. Were you present at the final interview between Dr. 
Beach and Dr. Hobart in which the latter sought to explain 
something that had previously passed between them, and to 
obtain a declaration from Dr. Beach, that what passed on 
that occasion had been misunderstood ; — did you not at that 
interview* and after some considerable conversation between 
Dr. Beach and Dr Hobart, propose to them a form of a de- 
claration as proper to be signed by Dr. Beach ? Was such 
form deemed satisfactory by Dr. Hobart, and was he willing 
to accept it? Did Dr. Beach consent to sigh it, or decline 
to do so ? And if he did so decline, upon what grounds or 
reasons. 

2. Where is the paper containing the form of the declara- 
tion referred to in the preceding interrogatory. If within 
your possession or power, annex the same or a copy thereof 
to your deposition in answer to these interrogatories. If not 
within your possession or power, state particularly and at 
large, the contents thereof, or if you cannot state such con- 
tents, relate the substance of the same as accurately and mi- 
nutely as your recollection may permit. 

To the first and second interrogatories the deponent saith. 
that he was present at three interviews, and what took place 
is principally set forth in the first answer. As to any form ot 
declaration, as proper to be signed by Dr. Beach, none was 
offered ; nor was any thing said about a written declaration* 
^The deponent suggested something, which he does not now 
recollect, merely as the thought of the moment ; but which 



bS7 

Dr. Beach rejected immediately,- and which the deponent, 
seeing the impropriety of it, immediately withdrew. 

3. What was the conduct and demeanor of Dr. Hohart 
towards Dr. Beach in the interview above referred to ? Was 
it not mild and respectful, and have you not since had occa- 
sion to remark this circumstance to some of his friends ? 

To the third interrogatory the deponent saith, that Dr Ho~ 
barfs conduct towards Dr. Beach, as to the two first inter- 
views, was neither mild nor respectful. In the last interview* 
when he accepted of Dr. Beach's proposal, he was mild and 
lespectful ; and this last circumstance the deponent may haye 
mentioned to his friends. 

ISAAC LAWRENCE 

Taken and sworn to this 23d July, 1813, before me, 

ROBERT BOGGS 



ERRATA. 



ERRATA IN MR. OGDEN S SPEECH. 

In page 280, in the fifth line of his speech, after the word 
ought insert not. 

Page 232, in line 15, for resist read existence. 

Page 288, in the 4th line, read sit for set. 

Page 292, in the 5th line, read resigned for resigning. 

Page 296, in the 6th line from the bottom, read vitiatur for 
mMur. 

Page 297, in the 4th line, for land read lead. 

Page 305, in the 20th line, for prelate read prcsbi/ter. 

ERRATA IN MR. WEL^s's SPEECH. 

Page 306, in the 5th line of his speech, for was read were 

Page 307, in the 5th line, for interest read interests. 

Page 308, in the 1st line, for these read those; and in the 
1 0th line for his acts are read he was. 

Page 310, in the 5th line from the bottom, for ever read 
even. 

Page 311, in the bottom line, for this read ilie. 

Page 317, in the 2d line of the 2d paragraph, after the 
word ascribe insert to ; and in the third line of the same par 
agraph, instead of power read hands. 

Page 320, in line 10, strike out the word thus. 

Page 324, in line 11, and line 14, for churches read church 

Page 325, in line 16, for satisfy read fortify; and in line 
29, s rlke out the words name of the. 

Page 328, in the 5th line from the bottom, after the word 
by add a. 

Page 335, in Sine 18, after the words feel that add it; aar. 
in line 29, for bisliop read bishops. 

Page 340, in line 27, fcr ex read lex. 

Page 348, in line 24, for livingly read lpmngty% and in lint 
29, for come read were. 

Page 349, in the 3d line of the 3d paragraph, for office rear* 
duty. 

Page 352, in the 9th line of the 3d paragraph, for ivlicre 
read whose. 

Page 353, in the 13th line of the 3d paragraph after the 
word permanent add a. 

Pase 367, in the 3d line, for disorder read discolour; an^i 
in the 13tn line for phantom read phantoms. 

Page 375, in the 5th line from the bottom, for set read sit. 

Page 333, in the 2d line from the bottom, for these read 
three. 

Page 387, in the 2d line, for probably read properly ; and 
in the 9th line, for it is read they are- 






j#w5y 



AwWW'fww 






iyiww 1 



iv wv«^ , 



.1, ^J^'WTj 



^WW 



J\JV\ 



WI&&&&&& 






SS^WWW 









<MW& 



jgggwv; 



i^:^gH 



- ^4 ^/ -^ ^ s, ^5 i^dy^i'^ 



,^w/w^w 



Vwb 



s*^ 



y«ww 









j£***tf 



NJ^JM 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 , 



yyHk 



y&y 



WWW 



iifcis 






gy^: 









iMI®^} 



N-HwiCiiVWW 



4»?H 



hnk, . ,ja>««sii 



£ 



•BMBMN! 



ng^ws 



S®.tO*J 



ilF 



'»«e 



WfV 



*=< *• ~ w 



V«^o ^^ 






VMMf 






* 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 523 149 3 






■ 



> "**" 






■ 



m^m 



H 





■ 




rw. 


■ 




LjU 




■ 




w* 










'■ tBT 




H 




■ 



